__________________________________________________________________ Title: The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 14: Simony-Tournon 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 14 Simony to Tournon New York: ROBERT APPLETON COMPANY Imprimatur JOHN M. FARLEY ARCHBISHOP OF NEW YORK __________________________________________________________________ Simony Simony (From Simon Magus; Acts, viii, 18-24) Simony is usually defined "a deliberate intention of buying or selling for a temporal price such things as are spiritual of annexed unto spirituals". While, this definition only speaks of purchase and sale, any exchange of spiritual for temporal things is simoniacal. Nor is the giving of the temporal as the price of the spiritual required for the existence of simony; according to a proposition condemned by Innocent XI (Denzinger-Bannwart, no. 1195) it suffices that the determining motive of the action of one party be the obtaining of compensation from the other. The various temporal advantages which may be offered for a spiritual favour are, after Gregory the Great, usually divided in three classes. These are: (1) the munus a manu (material advantage), which comprises money, all movable and immovable property, and all rights appreciable in pecuniary value; (2) the munus a lingua (oral advantage) which includes oral commendation, public expressions of approval, moral support in high places; (3) the munus ab obsequio (homage) which consists in subserviency, the rendering of undue services, etc. The spiritual object includes whatever is conducive to the eternal welfare of the soul, i.e. all supernatural things: sanctifying grace, the sacraments, sacramentals, etc. While according to the natural and Divine laws the term simony is applicable only to the exchange of supernatural treasures for temporal advantages, its meaning has been further extended through ecclesiastical legislation. In order to preclude all danger of simony the Church has forbidden certain dealings which did not fall under Divine prohibition. It is thus unlawful to exchange ecclesiastical benefices by private authority, to accept any payment whatever for holy oils, to sell blessed rosaries or crucifixes. Such objects lose, if sold, all the indulgences previously attached to them (S. Cong. Of Indulg., 12 July, 1847). Simony of ecclesiastical law is, of course a variable element, since the prohibitions of the Church may be abrogated or fall into disuse. Simony whether it be of ecclesiastical or Divine law, may be divided into mental, conventional, and real (simonia mentalis, conventionalis, et realis). In mental simony there is lacking the outward manifestation, or, according to others, the approval on the part of the person to whom a proposal is made. In conventional simony an expressed or tacit agreement is entered upon. It is subdivided into merely conventional, when neither party has fulfilled any of the terms of the agreement, and mixed conventional, when one of the parties has at least partly complied with the assumed obligations. To the latter subdivision may be referred what has been aptly termed "confidential simony", in which an ecclesiastical benefice is procured for a certain person with the understanding that later he will either resign in favour of the one through whom he obtained the position or divide with him the revenues. Simony is called real when the stipulations of the mutual agreement have been either partly or completely carried out by both parties. To estimate accurately the gravity of simony, which some medieval ecclesiastical writers denounced as the most abominable of crimes, a distinction must be made between the violations of the Divine law, and the dealings contrary to ecclesiastical legislation. Any transgression of the law of God in this matter is, objectively considered, grievous in every instance (mortalis ex toto genere suo). For this kind of simony places on a par things supernatural and things natural, things eternal and things temporal, and constitutes a sacrilegious depreciation of Divine treasures. The sin can become venial only through the absence of the subjective dispositions required for the commission of a grievous offense. The merely ecclesiastical prohibitions, however, do not all and under all circumstances impose a grave obligation. The presumption is that the church authority, which, in this connection, sometimes prohibits actions in themselves indifferent, did not intend the law to be grievously binding in minor details. As he who preaches the gospel "should live by the gospel" (I Cor., ix, 14) but should also avoid even the appearance of receiving temporal payment for spiritual services, difficulties may arise concerning the propriety or sinfulness of remuneration in certain circumstances. The ecclesiastic may certainly receive what is offered to him on the occasion of spiritual ministrations, but he cannot accept any payment for the same. The celebration of Mass for money would, consequently, be sinful; but it is perfectly legitimate to accept a stipend offered on such occasion for the support of the celebrant. The amount of the stipend, varying for different times and countries, is usually fixed by ecclesiastical authority (SEE STIPEND). It is allowed to accept it even should the priest be otherwise well-to-do; for he has a right to live from the altar and should avoid becoming obnoxious to other members of the gy. It is simoniacal to accept payment for the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, e.g., the granting of dispensations; but there is nothing improper in demanding from the applicants for matrimonial dispensations a contribution intended partly as a chancery fee and partly as a salutary fine calculated to prevent the too frequent recurrence of such requests. It is likewise simony to accept temporal compensation for admission into a religious order; but contributions made by candidates to defray the expenses of their novitiate as well as the dowry required by some female orders are not included in this prohibition. In regard to the parish clergy, the poorer the church, the more urgent is the obligation incumbent upon the faithful to support them. In the fulfilment of this duty local law and custom ought to be observed. The Second Plenary Council of Baltimore has framed the following decrees for the United States: (1) The priest may accept what is freely offered after the administration of baptism or matrimony, but should refrain from asking anything (no. 221). (2) The confessor is never allowed to apply to his own use pecuniary penances, nor may he ask or accept anything from the penitent in compensation of his services. Even voluntary gifts must be refused, and the offering of Mass stipends in the sacred tribunal cannot be permitted (no. 289). (3) The poor who cannot be buried at their own expense should receive free burial (no. 393). The Second and Third action of a compulsory contribution at the church entrance from the faithful who wish to hear Mass on Sundays and Holy Days (Conc. Plen. Balt. II, no 397; Conc. Plen. Balt. III, no 288). As this practice continue din existence in many churches until very recently, a circular letter addressed 29 Sept., 1911, by the Apostolic Delegate to the archbishops and bishops of the United States, again condemns the custom and requests the ordinaries to suppress it wherever found in existence. To uproot the evil of simony so prevalent during the Middle Ages, the Church decreed the severest penalties against its perpetrators. Pope Julius II declared simoniacal papal elections invalid, an enactment which has since been rescinded, however, by Pope Pius X (Constitution "Vacante Sede", 25 Dec., 1904, tit. II, cap. Vi, in "Canoniste Contemp.", XXXII, 1909, 291). The collation of a benefice is void if, in obtaining it, the appointee either committed simony himself, or at least tacitly approved of its commission by a third party. Should he have taken possession, he is bound to resign and restore all the revenues received during his tenure. Excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See is pronounced in the Constitution "Apostolicae Sedis" (12 Oct., 1869): (1) against persons guilty of real simony in any benefices and against their accomplices; (2) against any persons, whatsoever their dignity, guilty of confidential simony in any benefices; (3) against such as are guilty of simony by purchasing or selling admission into a religious order; (4) against all persons inferior to the bishops, who derive gain (quaestum facientes) from indulgences and other spiritual graces; (5) against those who, collecting stipends for Masses, realize a profit on them by having the Masses celebrated in places where smaller stipends are usually given. The last-mentioned provision was supplemented by subsequent decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Council. The Decree "Vigilanti" (25 May, 1893) forbade the practice indulged in by some booksellers of receiving stipends and offering exclusively books and subscriptions to periodicals to the celebrant of the Masses. The Decree "Ut Debita" (11 May, 1904) condemned the arrangements according to which the guardians of shrines sometimes devoted the offerings originally intended for Masses partly to other pious purposes. The offenders against the two decrees just mentioned incur suspension ipso facto from their functions if they are in sacred orders; inability to receive higher orders if they are clerics inferior to the priests; excommunication of pronounced sentence (latae sententiae) if they belong to the laity. N.A. WEBER Pope St. Simplicius Pope St. Simplicius Reigned 468-483; date of birth unknown; died 10 March, 483. According to the "Liber Pontificalis" (ed. Duchesne, I, 249) Simplicius was the son of a citizen of Tivoli named Castinus; and after the death of Pope Hilarius in 468 was elected to succeed the latter. The elevation of the new pope was not attended with any difficulties. During his pontificate the Western Empire came to an end. Since the murder of Valentinian III (455) there had been a rapid succession of insignificant emperors in the Western Roman Empire, who were constantly threatened by war and revolution. Following other German tribes the Heruli entered Italy, and their ruler Odoacer put an end to the Western Empire by deposing the last emperor, Romulus Augustulus, and assuming himself the title of King of Italy. Although an Arian, Odoacer treated the Catholic Church with much respect; he also retained the greater part of the former administrative organization, so that the change produced no great differences at Rome. During the Monophysite controversy, that was still carried on in the Eastern Empire, Simplicius vigorously defended the independence of the Church against the Cæsaropapism of the Byzantine rulers and the authority of the Apostolic See in questions of faith. The twenty-eighth canon of the Council of Chalcedon (451) granted the See of Constantinople the same privileges of honour that were enjoyed by the Bishop of Old Rome, although the primacy and the highest rank of honour were due to the latter. The papal legates protested against this elevation of the Byzantine Patriarch, and Pope Leo confirmed only the dogmatic decrees of the council. However, the Patriarch of Constantinople sought to bring the canon into force, and the Emperor Leo II desired to obtain its confirmation by Simplicius. The latter, however, rejected the request of the emperor and opposed the carrying out of the canon, that moreover limited the rights of the old Oriental patriarchates. The rebellion of Basiliscus, who in 476 drove the Emperor Zeno into exile and seized the Byzantine throne, intensified the Monophysite dispute. Basiliscus looked for support to the Monophysites, and he granted permission to the deposed Monophysite patriarchs, Timotheus Ailurus of Alexandria and Peter Fullo of Antioch, to return to their sees. At the same time he issued a religious edict (Enkyklikon) addressed to Ailurus, which commanded that only the first three ecumenical synods were to be accepted, and rejected the Synod of Chalcedon and the Letter of Pope Leo. All bishops were to sign the edict. The Bishop of Constantinople, Acacius (from 471), wavered and was about to proclaim this edict. But the firm stand taken by the populace, influenced by the monks who were rigidly Catholic in their opinions, moved the bishop to oppose the emperor and to defend the threatened faith. The abbots and priests of Constantinople united with Pope Simplicius, who made every effort to maintain the Catholic dogma and the definitions of the Council of Chalcedon. The pope exhorted to loyal adherence to the true faith in letters to Acacius, to the priests and abbots, as welI as to the usurper Basiliscus himself. In a letter to Basiliscus of 10 Jan., 476, Simplicius says of the See of Peter at Rome: "This same norm of Apostolic doctrine is firmly maintained by his (Peter's) successors, of him to whom the Lord entrusted the care of the entire flock of sheep, to whom He promised not to leave him until the end of time" (Thiel, "Rom. Pont.", 182). In the same way he took up with the emperor the cause of the Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria, Timotheus Salophakiolus, who had been superseded by Ailurus. When the Emperor Zeno in 477 drove away the usurper and again gained the supremacy, he sent the pope a completely Catholic confession of faith, whereupon Simplicius (9 Oct., 477) congratulated him on his restoration to power and exhorted him to ascribe the victory to God, who wished in this way to restore liberty to the Church. Zeno recalled the edicts of Basiliscus, banished Peter Fullo from Antioch, and reinstated Timotheus Salophakiolus at Alexandria. He did not disturb Ailurus on account of the latter's great age, and as matter of fact the latter soon died. The Monophysites of Alexandria now put forward Peter Mongus, the former archdeacon of Ailurus, as his successor. Urged by the pope and the Eastern Catholics, Zeno commanded the banishment of Peter Mongus, but the latter was able to hide in Alexandria, and fear of the Monophysites prevented the use of force. In a moment of weakness Salophakiolus himself had permitted the placing of the name of the Monophysite patriarch Dioscurus in the diptychs to be read at the church services. On 13 March, 478, Simplicius wrote to Acacius of Constantinople that Salophakiolus should be urged to wipe out the disgrace that he had brought upon himself. The latter sent legates and letters to Rome to give satisfaction to the pope. At the request of Acacius, who was still active against the Monophysites, the pope condemned by name the heretics Mongus, Fullo, Paul of Epheseus, and John of Apamea, and delegated the Patriarch of Constantinople to be in this his representative. When the Monophysites at Antioch raised a revolt in 497 against the patriarch Stephen II, and killed him, Acacius consecrated Stephen III, and afterwards Kalendion as Stephen's successors. Simplicius made an energetic demand upon the emperor to punish the murderers of the patriarch, and also reproved Acacius for exceeding his competence in performing this consecration; at the same time, though, the pope granted him the necessary dispensation. After the death of Salophakiolus, the Monophysites of Alexandria again elected Peter Mongus patriarch, while the Catholics chose Johannes Talaia. Both Acacius and the emperor, whom he influenced, were opposed to Talaia, and sided with Mongus. Mongus went to Constantinople to advance his cause. Acacius and he agreed upon a formula of union between the Catholics and the Monophysites that was approved by the Emperor Zeno in 482 (Henotikon). Talaia had sent ambassadors to Pope Simplicius to notify the pope of his election. However, at the same time, the pope received a letter from the emperor in which Talaia was accused of perjury and bribery and a demand was made for the recognition of Mongus. Simplicius, therefore, delayed to recognize Talaia, but protested energetically against the elevation of Mongus to the Patriarchate of Alexandria. Acacius, however, maintained his alliance with Mongus and sought to prevail upon the Eastern bishops to enter into Church communion with him. For a long time Acacius sent no information of any kind to the pope, so that the latter in a letter blamed him severely for this. When finally Talaia came to Rome in 483 Simplicius was already dead. Simplicius exercised a zealous pastoral care in western Europe also, notwithstanding the trying circumstances of the Church during the disorders of the Migrations. He issued decisions in ecclesiastical questions, appointed Bishop Zeno of Seville papal vicar in Spain, so that the prerogatives of the papal see could be exercised in the country itself for the benefit of the ecclesiastical administration. When Bishop John of Ravenna in 482 claimed Mutina as a suffragan diocese of his metropolitan see, and without more ado consecrated Bishop George for this diocese, Simplicius vigorously opposed him and defended the rights of the papal see. Simplicius established four new churches in Rome itself. A large hall built in the form of a rotunda on the Cælian Hill was turned into a church and dedicated to St. Stephen; the main part of this building still exists as the Church of San Stefano Rotondo. A fine hall near the Church of Santa Maria Maggiore was given to the Roman Church and turned by Simplicius into a church dedicated to St. Andrew by the addition of an apse adorned with mosaics; it is no longer in existence (cf. de Rossi, "Bull. di archeol. crist.", 1871, 1-64). The pope built a church dedicated to the first martyr, St. Stephen, behind the memorial church of San Lorenzo in Agro Verano; this church is no longer standing. He had a fourth church built in the city in honour of St. Balbina, "juxta palatium Licinianum", where her grave was; this church still remains. In order to make sure of the regular holding of church services, of the administration of baptism, and of the discipline of penance in the great churches of the catacombs outside the city walls, namely the church of St. Peter (in the Vatican), of St. Paul on the Via Ostiensis, and of St. Lawrence on the Via Tiburtina, Simplicius ordained that the clergy of three designated sections of the city should, in an established order, have charge of the religious functions at these churches of the catacombs. Simplicius was buried in St. Peter's on the Vatican. The "Liber Pontificalis" gives 2 March as the day of burial (VI non.); probably 10 March (VI id.) should be read. After his death King Odoacer desired to influence the filling of the papal see. The prefect of the city, Basilius, asserted that before death Pope Simplicius had begged to issue the order that no one should be consecrated Roman bishop without his consent (cf. concerning the regulation Thiel, "Epist. Rom. Pont.", 686-88). The Roman clergy opposed this edict that limited their right of election. They maintained the force of the edict, issued by the Emperor Honorius at the instance of Pope Boniface I, that only that person should be regarded as the rightful Bishop of Rome who was elected according to canonical form with Divine approval and universal consent. Simplicius was venerated as a saint; his feast is on 2 or 3 March. Liber pontificalis, ed. DUCHESNE, I, 249-251; JAFFÉ, Regesta Pont. Rom., 2nd ed., I, 77-80; THIEL, Epist. Rom. Pontif., I (Brunswick, 1868), 174 sq.; LIBERATUS, Breviar. Causæ Nestor., xvi sq.; EVAGRIUS, Hist. eccl., III, 4 sq.; HERGENRÖTHER, Photius, I, 111-22; GRISAR, Geschichte Roms und der Päpste, I, 153 sq., 324 sq.; LANGEN, Geschichte der römischen Kirche, II (Bonn, 1885), 126 sqq.; WURM, Die Papstwahl (Cologne, 1902). J.P. KIRSCH Simplicius, Faustinus, and Beatrice Simplicius, Faustinus, and Beatrice Martyrs at Rome during the Diocletian persecution (302 or 303). The brothers Simplicius and Faustinus were cruelly tortured on account of their Christian faith, beaten with clubs, and finally beheaded; their bodies were thrown into the Tiber. According to another version of the legend a stone was tied to them and they were drowned. Their sister Beatrice had the bodies drawn out of the water and buried. Then for seven months she lived with a pious matron named Lucina, and with her aid Beatrice succoured the persecuted Christians by day and night. Finally she was discovered and arrested. Her accuser was her neighbor Lucretius who desired to obtain possession of her lands. She courageously asserted before the judge that she would never sacrifice to demons, because she was a Christian. As punishment, she was strangled in prison. Her friend Lucina buried her by her brothers in the cemetery ad Ursum Pileatum on the road to Porto. Soon after this Divine punishment overtook the accuser Lucretius. When Lucretius at a feast was making merry over the folly of the martyrs, an infant who had been brought to the entertainment by his mother, cried out, "Thou hast committed murder and hast taken unjust possession of land. Thou art a slave of the devil". And the devil at once took possession of him and tortured him three hours and drew him down into the bottomless pit. The terror of those present was so great that they became Christians. This is the story of the legend. Trustworthy Acts concerning the history of the two brothers and sister are no longer in existence. Pope Leo II (683-683) translated their relics to a church which he had built at Rome in honour of St. Paul. Later the greater part of the relics of the martyrs were taken to the Church of Santa Maria Maggiore. St. Simplicius is represented with a pennant, on the shield of which are three lilies called the crest of Simplicius; the lilies are a symbol of purity of heart. St. Beatrice has a cord in her hand, because she was strangled. The feast of the three saints is on 29 July. Acta SS., July, VII, 34-37; Bibliotheca hagiographica latina (Brussels, 1898-1900), 1127-28. KLEMENS LOFFLER Richard Simpson Richard Simpson Born 1820; died near Rome, 5 April, 1876. He was educated at Oriel College, Oxford, and took his B. A. degree, 9 February, 1843. Being ordained an Anglican clergyman, he was appointed vicar of Mitcham in Surrey, but resigned this in 1845 to become a Catholic. After some years spent on the continent, during which time he became remarkably proficient as a linguist, he returned to England and became editor of "The Rambler". When this ceased in 1862 he, with Sir John Acton, began the "Home and Foreign Review", which was opposed by ecclesiastical authority as unsound and was discontinued in 1864. Afterwards Simpson devoted himself to the study of Shakespeare and to music. His works are: "Invocation of Saints proved from the Bible alone" (1849); "The Lady Falkland: her life" (1861); "Edmund Campion" (1867), the most valuable of his works; "Introduction to the Philosophy of Shakespeare's Sonnets" (1868); "The School of Shakespeare" (1872); and "Sonnets of Shakespeare selected from a complete setting, and miscellaneous songs" (1878). Though he remained a practical Catholic his opinions were very liberal and he assisted Mr. Gladstone in writing his pamphlet on "Vaticanism". His papers in "The Rambler" on the English martyrs deserve attention. COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v.; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v.; WARD, Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman (London, 1897); GASQUET, Lord Acton and His Circle (London, 1906). EDWIN BURTON Sin Sin The subject is treated under these heads: I. Nature of sin II. Division III. Mortal Sin IV. Venial Sin V. Permission and Remedies VI. The Sense of Sin I. NATURE OF SIN Since sin is a moral evil, it is necessary in the first place to determine what is meant by evil, and in particular by moral evil. Evil is defined by St. Thomas (De malo, 2:2) as a privation of form or order or due measure. In the physical order a thing is good in proportion as it possesses being. God alone is essentially being, and He alone is essentially and perfectly good. Everything else possesses but a limited being, and, in so far as it possesses being, it is good. When it has its due proportion of form and order and measure it is, in its own order and degree, good. (See GOOD.) Evil implies a deficiency in perfection, hence it cannot exist in God who is essentially and by nature good; it is found only in finite beings which, because of their origin from nothing, are subject to the privation of form or order or measure due them, and, through the opposition they encounter, are liable to an increase or decrease of the perfection they have: "for evil, in a large sense, may be described as the sum of opposition, which experience shows to exist in the universe, to the desires and needs of individuals; whence arises, among human beings at least, the suffering in which life abounds" (see EVIL). According to the nature of the perfection which it limits, evil is metaphysical, physical, or moral. Metaphysical evil is not evil properly so called; it is but the negation of a greater good, or the limitation of finite beings by other finite beings. Physical evil deprives the subject affected by it of some natural good, and is adverse to the well-being of the subject, as pain and suffering. Moral evil is found only in intelligent beings; it deprives them of some moral good. Here we have to deal with moral evil only. This may be defined as a privation of conformity to right reason and to the law of God. Since the morality of a human act consists in its agreement or non-agreement with right reason and the eternal law, an act is good or evil in the moral order according as it involves this agreement or non-agreement. When the intelligent creature, knowing God and His law, deliberately refuses to obey, moral evil results. Sin is nothing else than a morally bad act (St. Thomas, "De malo", 8:3), an act not in accord with reason informed by the Divine law. God has endowed us with reason and free-will, and a sense of responsibility; He has made us subject to His law, which is known to us by the dictates of conscience, and our acts must conform with these dictates, otherwise we sin (Rom. 14:23). In every sinful act two things must be considered, the substance of the act and the want of rectitude or conformity (St. Thomas, I-II:72:1). The act is something positive. The sinner intends here and now to act in some determined matter, inordinately electing that particular good in defiance of God's law and the dictates of right reason. The deformity is not directly intended, nor is it involved in the act so far as this is physical, but in the act as coming from the will which has power over its acts and is capable of choosing this or that particular good contained within the scope of its adequate object, i.e. universal good (St. Thomas, "De malo", Q. 3, a. 2, ad 2um). God, the first cause of all reality, is the cause of the physical act as such, the free-will of the deformity (St. Thomas I-II:84:2; "De malo", 3:2). The evil act adequately considered has for its cause the free-will defectively electing some mutable good in place of the eternal good, God, and thus deviating from its true last end. In every sin a privation of due order or conformity to the moral law is found, but sin is not a pure, or entire privation of all moral good (St. Thomas, "De malo", 2:9; I-II:73:2). There is a twofold privation; one entire which leaves nothing of its opposite, as for instance, darkness which leaves no light; another, not entire, which leaves something of the good to which it is opposed, as for instance, disease which does not entirely destroy the even balance of the bodily functions necessary for health. A pure or entire privation of good could occur in a moral act only on the supposition that the will could incline to evil as such for an object. This is impossible because evil as such is not contained within the scope of the adequate object of the will, which is good. The sinner's intention terminates at some object in which there is a participation of God's goodness, and this object is directly intended by him. The privation of due order, or the deformity, is not directly intended, but is accepted in as much as the sinner's desire tends to an object in which this want of conformity is involved, so that sin is not a pure privation, but a human act deprived of its due rectitude. From the defect arises the evil of the act, from the fact that it is voluntary, its imputability. II. DIVISION OF SIN As regards the principle from which it proceeds sin is original or actual. The will of Adam acting as head of the human race for the conservation or loss of original justice is the cause and source of original sin. Actual sin is committed by a free personal act of the individual will. It is divided into sins of commission and omission. A sin of commission is a positive act contrary to some prohibitory precept; a sin of omission is a failure to do what is commanded. A sin of omission, however, requires a positive act whereby one wills to omit the fulfilling of a precept, or at least wills something incompatible with its fulfillment (I-II:72:5). As regards their malice, sins are distinguished into sins of ignorance, passion or infirmity, and malice; as regards the activities involved, into sins of thought, word, or deed (cordis, oris, operis); as regards their gravity, into mortal and venial. This last named division is indeed the most important of all and it calls for special treatment. But before taking up the details, it will be useful to indicate some further distinctions which occur in theology or in general usage. Material and Formal Sin This distinction is based upon the difference between the objective elements (object itself, circumstances) and the subjective (advertence to the sinfulness of the act). An action which, as a matter of fact, is contrary to the Divine law but is not known to be such by the agent constitutes a material sin; whereas formal sin is committed when the agent freely transgresses the law as shown him by his conscience, whether such law really exists or is only thought to exist by him who acts. Thus, a person who takes the property of another while believing it to be his own commits a material sin; but the sin would be formal if he took the property in the belief that it belonged to another, whether his belief were correct or not. Internal Sins That sin may be committed not only by outward deeds but also by the inner activity of the mind apart from any external manifestation, is plain from the precept of the Decalogue: "Thou shalt not covet", and from Christ's rebuke of the scribes and pharisees whom he likens to "whited sepulchres... full of all filthiness" (Matt. 23:27). Hence the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, c. v), in declaring that all mortal sins must be confessed, makes special mention of those that are most secret and that violate only the last two precepts of the Decalogue, adding that they "sometimes more grievously wound the soul and are more dangerous than sins which are openly committed". Three kinds of internal sin are usually distinguished: + delectatio morosa, i.e. the pleasure taken in a sinful thought or imagination even without desiring it; + gaudium, i.e. dwelling with complacency on sins already committed; and + desiderium, i.e. the desire for what is sinful. An efficacious desire, i.e. one that includes the deliberate intention to realize or gratify the desire, has the same malice, mortal or venial, as the action which it has in view. An inefficacious desire is one that carries a condition, in such a way that the will is prepared to perform the action in case the condition were verified. When the condition is such as to eliminate all sinfulness from the action, the desire involves no sin: e.g. I would gladly eat meat on Friday, if I had a dispensation; and in general this is the case whenever the action is forbidden by positive law only. When the action is contrary to natural law and yet is permissible in given circumstances or in a particular state of life, the desire, if it include those circumstances or that state as conditions, is not in itself sinful: e.g. I would kill so-and-so if I had to do it in self-defence. Usually, however, such desires are dangerous and therefore to be repressed. If, on the other hand, the condition does not remove the sinfulness of the action, the desire is also sinful. This is clearly the case where the action is intrinsically and absolutely evil, e.g. blasphemy: one cannot without committing sin, have the desire -- I would blaspheme God if it were not wrong; the condition is an impossible one and therefore does not affect the desire itself. The pleasure taken in a sinful thought (delectatio, gaudium) is, generally speaking, a sin of the same kind and gravity as the action which is thought of. Much, however, depends on the motive for which one thinks of sinful actions. The pleasure, e.g. which one may experience in studying the nature of murder or any other crime, in getting clear ideas on the subject, tracing its causes, determining the guilt etc., is not a sin; on the contrary, it is often both necessary and useful. The case is different of course where the pleasure means gratification in the sinful object or action itself. And it is evidently a sin when one boasts of his evil deeds, the more so because of the scandal that is given. The Capital Sins or Vices According to St. Thomas (II-II:153:4) "a capital vice is that which has an exceedingly desirable end so that in his desire for it a man goes on to the commission of many sins all of which are said to originate in that vice as their chief source". It is not then the gravity of the vice in itself that makes it capital but rather the fact that it gives rise to many other sins. These are enumerated by St. Thomas (I-II:84:4) as vainglory (pride), avarice, gluttony, lust, sloth, envy, anger. St. Bonaventure (Brevil., III, ix) gives the same enumeration. Earlier writers had distinguished eight capital sins: so St. Cyprian (De mort., iv); Cassian (De instit. cænob., v, coll. 5, de octo principalibus vitiis); Columbanus ("Instr. de octo vitiis princip." in "Bibl. max. vet. patr.", XII, 23); Alcuin (De virtut. et vitiis, xxvii sqq.). The number seven, however, had been given by St. Gregory the Great (Lib. mor. in Job. XXXI, xvii), and it was retained by the foremost theologians of the Middle Ages. It is to be noted that "sin" is not predicated univocally of all kinds of sin. "The division of sin into venial and mortal is not a division of genus into species which participate equally the nature of the genus, but the division of an analogue into things of which it is predicated primarily and secondarily" (St. Thomas, I-II:138:1, ad 1um). "Sin is not predicated univocally of all kinds of sin, but primarily of actual mortal sin ... and therefore it is not necessary that the definition of sin in general should be verified except in that sin in which the nature of the genus is found perfectly. The definition of sin may be verified in other sins in a certain sense" (St. Thomas, II, d. 33, Q. i, a. 2, ad 2um). Actual sin primarily consists in a voluntary act repugnant to the order of right reason. The act passes, but the soul of the sinner remains stained, deprived of grace, in a state of sin, until the disturbance of order has been restored by penance. This state is called habitual sin, macula peccati. reatus culpæ (I-II:87:6). The division of sin into original and actual, mortal and venial, is not a division of genus into species because sin has not the same signification when applied to original and personal sin, mortal and venial. Mortal sin cuts us off entirely from our true last end; venial sin only impedes us in its attainment. Actual personal sin is voluntary by a proper act of the will. Original sin is voluntary not by a personal voluntary act of ours, but by an act of the will of Adam. Original and actual sin are distinguished by the manner in which they are voluntary (ex parte actus); mortal and venial sin by the way in which they affect our relation to God (ex parte deordinationis). Since a voluntary act and its disorder are of the essence of sin, it is impossible that sin should be a generic term in respect to original and actual, mortal and venial sin. The true nature of sin is found perfectly only in a personal mortal sin, in other sins imperfectly, so that sin is predicated primarily of actual sin, only secondarily of the others. Therefore we shall consider: first, personal mortal sin; second, venial sin. III. MORTAL SIN Mortal sin is defined by St. Augustine (Contra Faustum, XXII, xxvii) as "Dictum vel factum vel concupitum contra legem æternam", i.e. something said, done or desired contrary to the eternal law, or a thought, word, or deed contrary to the eternal law. This is a definition of sin as it is a voluntary act. As it is a defect or privation it may be defined as an aversion from God, our true last end, by reason of the preference given to some mutable good. The definition of St. Augustine is accepted generally by theologians and is primarily a definition of actual mortal sin. It explains well the material and formal elements of sin. The words "dictum vel factum vel concupitum" denote the material element of sin, a human act: "contra legem æternam", the formal element. The act is bad because it transgresses the Divine law. St. Ambrose (De paradiso, viii) defines sin as a "prevarication of the Divine law". The definition of St. Augustine strictly considered, i.e. as sin averts us from our true ultimate end, does not comprehend venial sin, but in as much as venial sin is in a manner contrary to the Divine law, although not averting us from our last end, it may be said to be included in the definition as it stands. While primarily a definition of sins of commission, sins of omission may be included in the definition because they presuppose some positive act (St. Thomas, I-II:71:5) and negation and affirmation are reduced to the same genus. Sins that violate the human or the natural law are also included, for what is contrary to the human or natural law is also contrary to the Divine law, in as much as every just human law is derived from the Divine law, and is not just unless it is in conformity with the Divine law. Biblical Description of Sin In the Old Testament sin is set forth as an act of disobedience (Gen., ii, 16-17; iii, 11; Is., i, 2-4; Jer., ii, 32); as an insult to God (Num., xxvii, 14); as something detested and punished by God (Gen., iii, 14-19; Gen., iv, 9-16); as injurious to the sinner (Tob., xii, 10); to be expiated by penance (Ps. 1, 19). In the New Testament it is clearly taught in St. Paul that sin is a transgression of the law (Rom., ii, 23; v, 12-20); a servitude from which we are liberated by grace (Rom., vi, 16-18); a disobedience (Heb., ii, 2) punished by God (Heb., x, 26-31). St. John describes sin as an offence to God, a disorder of the will (John, xii, 43), an iniquity (I John, iii, 4-10). Christ in many of His utterances teaches the nature and extent of sin. He came to promulgate a new law more perfect than the old, which would extend to the ordering not only of external but also of internal acts to a degree unknown before, and, in His Sermon on the Mount, he condemns as sinful many acts which were judged honest and righteous by the doctors and teachers of the Old Law. He denounces in a special manner hypocrisy and scandal, infidelity and the sin against the Holy Ghost. In particular He teaches that sins come from the heart (Matt., xv, 19-20). Systems Which Deny Sin or Distort its True Notion All systems, religious and ethical, which either deny, on the one hand, the existence of a personal creator and lawgiver distinct from and superior to his creation, or, on the other, the existence of free will and responsibility in man, distort or destroy the true biblico-theological notion of sin. In the beginning of the Christian era the Gnostics, although their doctrines varied in details, denied the existence of a personal creator. The idea of sin in the Catholic sense is not contained in their system. There is no sin for them, unless it be the sin of ignorance, no necessity for an atonement; Jesus is not God (see GNOSTICISM). Manichaeism (q.v.) with its two eternal principles, good and evil, at perpetual war with each other, is also destructive of the true notion of sin. All evil, and consequently sin, is from the principle of evil. The Christian concept of God as a lawgiver is destroyed. Sin is not a conscious voluntary act of disobedience to the Divine will. Pantheistic systems which deny the distinction between God and His creation make sin impossible. If man and God are one, man is not responsible to anyone for his acts, morality is destroyed. If he is his own rule of action, he cannot deviate from right as St. Thomas teaches (I:63:1). The identification of God and the world by Pantheism (q.v.) leaves no place for sin. There must be some law to which man is subject, superior to and distinct from him, which can be obeyed and transgressed, before sin can enter into his acts. This law must be the mandate of a superior, because the notions of superiority and subjection are correlative. This superior can be only God, who alone is the author and lord of man. Materialism, denying as it does the spirituality and the immortality of the soul, the existence of any spirit whatsoever, and consequently of God, does not admit sin. There is no free will, everything is determined by the inflexible laws of motion. "Virtue" and "vice" are meaningless qualifications of action. Positivism places man's last end in some sensible good. His supreme law of action is to seek the maximum of pleasure. Egotism or altruism is the supreme norm and criterion of the Positivistic systems, not the eternal law of God as revealed by Him, and dictated by conscience. For the materialistic evolutionists man is but a highly-developed animal, conscience a product of evolution. Evolution has revolutionized morality, sin is no more. Kant in his "Critique of Pure Reason" having rejected all the essential notions of true morality, namely, liberty, the soul, God and a future life, attempted in his "Critique of the Practical Reason" to restore them in the measure in which they are necessary for morality. The practical reason, he tells us, imposes on us the idea of law and duty. The fundamental principle of the morality of Kant is "duty for duty's sake", not God and His law. Duty cannot be conceived of alone as an independent thing. It carries with it certain postulates, the first of which is liberty. "I ought, therefore I can", is his doctrine. Man by virtue of his practical reason has a consciousness of moral obligation (categorical imperative). This consciousness supposes three things: free will, the immortality of the soul, the existence of God, otherwise man would not be capable of fulfilling his obligations, there would be no sufficient sanction for the Divine law, no reward or punishment in a future life. Kant's moral system labours in obscurities and contradictions and is destructive of much that pertains to the teaching of Christ. Personal dignity is the supreme rule of man's actions. The notion of sin as opposed to God is suppressed. According to the teaching of materialistic Monism, now so widespread, there is, and can be, no free will. According to this doctrine but one thing exists and this one being produces all phenomena, thought included; we are but puppets in its hands, carried hither an thither as it wills, and finally are cast back into nothingness. There is no place for good and evil, a free observance or a wilful transgression of law, in such a system. Sin in the true sense is impossible. Without law and liberty and a personal God there is no sin. That God exists and can be known from His visible creation, that He has revealed the decrees of His eternal will to man, and is distinct from His creatures (Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchiridion", nn. 178 2, 1785, 1701), are matters of Catholic faith and teaching. Man is a created being endowed with free will (ibid., 793), which fact can be proved from Scripture and reason (ibid., 1041-1650). The Council of Trent declares in Sess. VI, c. i (ibid., 793) that man by reason of the prevarication of Adam has lost his primeval innocence, and that while free will remains, its powers are lessened (see ORIGINAL SIN). Protestant Errors Luther and Calvin taught as their fundamental error that no free will properly so called remained in man after the fall of our first parents; that the fulfillment of God's precepts is impossible even with the assistance of grace, and that man in all his actions sins. Grace is not an interior gift, but something external. To some sin is not imputed, because they are covered as with a cloak by the merits of Christ. Faith alone saves, there is no necessity for good works. Sin in Luther's doctrine cannot be a deliberate transgression of the Divine law. Jansenius, in his "Augustinus", taught that according to the present powers of man some of God's precepts are impossible of fulfilment, even to the just who strive to fulfil them, and he further taught that grace by means of which the fulfilment becomes possible is wanting even to the just. His fundamental error consists in teaching that the will is not free but is necessarily drawn either by concupiscence or grace. Internal liberty is not required for merit or demerit. Liberty from coercion suffices. Christ did not die for all men. Baius taught a semi-Lutheran doctrine. Liberty is not entirely destroyed, but is so weakened that without grace it can do nothing but sin. True liberty is not required for sin. A bad act committed involuntarily renders man responsible (propositions 50-51 in Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchiridion", nn. 1050-1). All acts done without charity are mortal sins and merit damnation because they proceed from concupiscence. This doctrine denies that sin is a voluntary transgression of Divine law. If man is not free, a precept is meaningless as far as he is concerned. Philosophical Sin Those who would construct a moral system independent of God and His law distinguish between theological and philosophical sin. Philosophical sin is a morally bad act which violates the natural order of reason, not the Divine law. Theological sin is a transgression of the eternal law. Those who are of atheistic tendencies and contend for this distinction, either deny the existence of God or maintain that He exercises no providence in regard to human acts. This position is destructive of sin in the theological sense, as God and His law, reward and punishment, are done away with. Those who admit the existence of God, His law, human liberty and responsibility, and still contend for a distinction between philosophical and theological sin, maintain that in the present order of God's providence there are morally bad acts, which, while violating the order of reason, are not offensive to God, and they base their contention on this that the sinner can be ignorant of the existence of God, or not actually think of Him and His law when he acts. Without the knowledge of God and consideration of Him, it is impossible to offend Him. This doctrine was censured as scandalous, temerarious, and erroneous by Alexander VIII (24 Aug., 1690) in his condemnation of the following proposition: "Philosophical or moral sin is a human act not in agreement with rational nature and right reason, theological and mortal sin is a free transgession of the Divine law. However grievous it may be, philosophical sin in one who is either ignorant of God or does not actually think of God, is indeed a grievous sin, but not an offense to God, nor a mortal sin dissolving friendship with God, nor worthy of eternal punishment" (Denzinger-Bannwart, 1290). This proposition is condemned because it does not distinguish between vincible and invincible ignorance, and further supposes invincible ignorance of God to be sufficiently common, instead of only metaphysically possible, and because in the present dispensation of God's providence we are clearly taught in Scripture that God will punish all evil coming from the free will of man (Rom., ii, 5-11). There is no morally bad act that does not include a transgression of Divine law. From the fact that an action is conceived of as morally evil it is conceived of as prohibited. A prohibition is unintelligible without the notion of some one prohibiting. The one prohibiting in this case and binding the conscience of man can be only God, Who alone has power over man's free will and actions, so that from the fact that any act is perceived to be morally bad and prohibited by conscience, God and His law are perceived at least confusedly, and a wilful transgression of the dictate of conscience is necessarily also a transgression of God's law. Cardinal de Lugo (De incarnat., disp. 5, lect. 3) admits the possibility of philosophical sin in those who are inculpably ignorant of God, but he holds that it does not actually occur, because in the present order of God's providence there cannot be invincible ignorance of God and His law. This teaching does not necessarily fall under the condemnation of Alexander VIII, but it is commonly rejected by theologians for the reason that a dictate of conscience necessarily involves a knowledge of the Divine law as a principle of morality. Conditions of Mortal Sin: Knowledge, Free Will, Grave Matter Contrary to the teaching of Baius (prop. 46, Denzinger-Bannwart, 1046) and the Reformers, a sin must be a voluntary act. Those actions alone are properly called human or moral actions which proceed from the human will deliberately acting with knowledge of the end for which it acts. Man differs from all irrational creatures in this precisely that he is master of his actions by virtue of his reason and free will (I-II:1:1). Since sin is a human act wanting in due rectitude, it must have, in so far as it is a human act, the essential constituents of a human act. The intellect must perceive and judge of the morality of the act, and the will must freely elect. For a deliberate mortal sin there must be full advertence on the part of the intellect and full consent on the part of the will in a grave matter. An involuntary transgression of the law even in a grave matter is not a formal but a material sin. The gravity of the matter is judged from the teaching of Scripture, the definitions of councils and popes, and also from reason. Those sins are judged to be mortal which contain in themselves some grave disorder in regard to God, our neighbour, ourselves, or society. Some sins admit of no lightness of matter, as for example, blasphemy, hatred of God; they are always mortal (ex toto genere suo), unless rendered venial by want of full advertence on the part of the intellect or full consent on the part of the will. Other sins admit lightness of matter: they are grave sins (ex genere suo) in as much as their matter in itself is sufficient to constitute a grave sin without the addition of any other matter, but is of such a nature that in a given case, owing to its smallness, the sin may be venial, e.g. theft. Imputability That the act of the sinner may be imputed to him it is not necessary that the object which terminates and specifies his act should be directly willed as an ends or means. It suffices that it be willed indirectly or in its cause, i.e. if the sinner foresees, at least confusedly, that it will follow from the act which he freely performs or from his omission of an act. When the cause produces a twofold effect, one of which is directly willed, the other indirectly, the effect which follows indirectly is morally imputable to the sinner when these three conditions are verified: + first, the sinner must foresee at least confusedly the evil effects which follow on the cause he places; + second, he must be able to refrain from placing the cause; + third, he must be under the obligation of preventing the evil effect. Error and ignorance in regard to the object or circumstances of the act to be placed, affect the judgment of the intellect and consequently the morality and imputability of the act. Invincible ignorance excuses entirely from sin. Vincible ignorance does not, although it renders the act less free (see IGNORANCE). The passions, while they disturb the judgment of the intellect, more directly affect the will. Antecedent passion increases the intensity of the act, the object is more intensely desired, although less freely, and the distrubance caused by the passions may be so great as to render a free judgment impossible, the agent being for the moment beside himself (I-II:6:7, ad 3um). Consequent passion, which arises from a command of the will, does not lessen liberty, but is rather a sign of an intense act of volition. Fear, violence, heredity, temperament and pathological states, in so far as they affect free volition, affect the malice and imputability of sin. From the condemnation of the errors of Baius and Jansenius (Denz.-Bann., 1046, 1066, 1094, 1291-2) it is clear that for an actual personal sin a knowledge of the law and a personal voluntary act, free from coercion and necessity, are required. No mortal sin is committed in a state of invincible ignorance or in a half-conscious state. Actual advertence to the sinfulness of the act is not required, virtual advertence suffices. It is not necessary that the explicit intention to offend God and break His law be present, the full and free consent of the will to an evil act suffices. Malice The true malice of mortal sin consists in a conscious and voluntary transgression of the eternal law, and implies a contempt of the Divine will, a complete turning away from God, our true last end, and a preferring of some created thing to which we subject ourselves. It is an offence offered to God, and an injury done Him; not that it effects any change in God, who is immutable by nature, but that the sinner by his act deprives God of the reverence and honor due Him: it is not any lack of malice on the sinner's part, but God's immutability that prevents Him from suffering. As an offence offered to God mortal sin is in a way infinite in its malice, since it is directed against an infinite being, and the gravity of the offence is measured by the dignity of the one offended (St. Thomas, III:1:2, ad 2um). As an act sin is finite, the will of man not being capable of infinite malice. Sin is an offence against Christ Who has redeemed man (Phil., iii, 18); against the Holy Ghost Who sanctifies us (Heb., x, 29), an injury to man himself, causing the spiritual death of the soul, and making man the servant of the devil. The first and primary malice of sin is derived from the object to which the will inordinately tends, and from the object considered morally, not physically. The end for which the sinner acts and the circumstances which surround the act are also determining factors of its morality. An act which, objectively considered, is morally indifferent, may be rendered good or evil by circumstances, or by the intention of the sinner. An act that is good objectively may be rendered bad, or a new species of good or evil may be added, or a new degree. Circumstances can change the character of a sin to such a degree that it becomes specifically different from what it is objectively considered; or they may merely aggravate the sin while not changing its specific character; or they may lessen its gravity. That they may exercise this determining influence two things are necessary: they must contain in themselves some good or evil, and must be apprehended, at least confusedly, in their moral aspect. The external act, in so far as it is a mere execution of a voluntary efficacious internal act, does not, according to the common Thomistic opinion, add any essential goodness or malice to the internal sin. Gravity While every mortal sin averts us from our true last end, all mortal sins are not equally grave, as is clear from Scripture (John, xix, 11; Matt., xi, 22; Luke, vi), and also from reason. Sins are specifically distinguished by their objects, which do not all equally avert man from his last end. Then again, since sin is not a pure privation, but a mixed one, all sins do not equally destroy the order of reason. Spiritual sins, other things being equal, are graver than carnal sins. (St. Thomas, "De malo", Q. ii, a. 9; I-II, Q. lxxiii, a. 5). Specific and numeric distinction of Sin Sins are distinguished specifically by their formally diverse objects; or from their opposition to different virtues, or to morally different precepts of the same virtue. Sins that are specifically distinct are also numerically distinct. Sins within the same species are distinguished numerically according to the number of complete acts of the will in regard to total objects. A total object is one which, either in itself or by the intention of the sinner, forms a complete whole and is not referred to another action as a part of the whole. When the completed acts of the will relate to the same object there are as many sins as there are morally interrupted acts. Subject causes of Sin Since sin is a voluntary act lacking in due rectitude, sin is found, as in a subject, principally in the will. But, since not only acts elicited by the will are voluntary, but also those that are elicited by other faculties at the command of the will, sin may be found in these faculties in so far as they are subject in their actions to the command of the will, and are instruments of the will, and move under its guidance (I-II:74). The external members of the body cannot be effective principles of sin (I-II:74:2, ad 3um). They are mere organs which are set in activity by the soul; they do not initiate action. The appetitive powers on the contrary can be effective principles of sin, for they possess, through their immediate conjunction with the will and their subordination to it, a certain though imperfect liberty (I-II:56:4, ad 3um). The sensual appetites have their own proper sensible objects to which they naturally incline, and since original sin has broken the bond which held them in complete subjection to the will, they may antecede the will in their actions and tend to their own proper objects inordinately. Hence they may be proximate principles of sin when they move inordinately contrary to the dictates of right reason. It is the right of reason to rule the lower faculties, and when the disturbance arises in the sensual part the reason may do one of two things: it may either consent to the sensible delectation or it may repress and reject it. If it consents, the sin is no longer one of the sensual part of man, but of the intellect and will, and consequently, if the matter is grave, mortal. If rejected, no sin can be imputed. There can be no sin in the sensual part of man independently of the will. The inordinate motions of the sensual appetite which precede the advertence of reason, or which are suffered unwillingly, are not even venial sins. The temptations of the flesh not consented to are not sins. Concupiscence, which remains after the guilt of original sin is remitted in baptism, is not sinful so long as consent is not given to it (Coun. of Trent, sess. V, can. v). The sensual appetite of itself cannot be the subject of mortal sin, for the reason that it can neither grasp the notion of God as an ultimate end, nor avert us from Him, without which aversion there cannot be mortal sin. The superior reason, whose office it is to occupy itself with Divine things, may be the proximate principle of sin both in regard to its own proper act, to know truth, and as it is directive of the inferior faculties: in regard to its own proper act, in so far as it voluntarily neglects to know what it can and ought to know; in regard to the act by which it directs the inferior faculties, to the extent that it commands inordinate acts or fails to repress them (I-II:74:7, ad 2um). The will never consents to a sin that is not at the same time a sin of the superior reason as directing badly, by either actually deliberating and commanding the consent, or by failing to deliberate and impede the consent of the will when it could and should do so. The superior reason is the ultimate judge of human acts and has an obligation of deliberating and deciding whether the act to be performed is according to the law of God. Venial sin may also be found in the superior reason when it deliberately consents to sins that are venial in their nature, or when there is not a full consent in the case of a sin that is mortal considered objectively. Causes of Sin Under this head, it is needful to distinguish between the efficient cause, i.e. the agent performing the sinful action, and those other agencies, influences or circumstances, which incite to sin and consequently involve a danger, more or less grave, for one who is exposed to them. These inciting causes are explained in special articles on OCCASIONS OF SIN and TEMPTATION. Here we have to consider only the efficient cause or causes of sin. These are interior and exterior. The complete and sufficient cause of sin is the will, which is regulated in its actions by the reason, and acted upon by the sensitive appetites. The principal interior causes of sin are ignorance, infirmity or passion, and malice. Ignorance on the part of the reason, infirmity and passion on the part of the sensitive appetite, and malice on the part of the will. A sin is from certain malice when the will sins of its own accord and not under the influence of ignorance or passion. The exterior causes of sin are the devil and man, who move to sin by means of suggestion, persuasion, temptation and bad example. God is not the cause of sin (Counc. of Trent, sess. VI, can. vi, in Denz.-Bann., 816). He directs all things to Himself and is the end of all His actions, and could not be the cause of evil without self-contradiction. Of whatever entity there is in sin as an action, He is the cause. The evil will is the cause of the disorder (I-II:79:2). One sin may be the cause of another inasmuch as one sin may be ordained to another as an end. The seven capital sins, so called, may be considered as the source from which other sins proceed. They are sinful propensities which reveal themselves in particular sinful acts. Original sin by reason of its dire effects is the cause and source of sin in so far as by reason of it our natures are left wounded and inclined to evil. Ignorance, infirmity, malice, and concupiscence are the consequences of original sin. Effects of Sin The first effect of mortal sin in man is to avert him from his true last end, and deprive his soul of sanctifying grace. The sinful act passes, and the sinner is left in a state of habitual aversion from God. The sinful state is voluntary and imputable to the sinner, because it necessarily follows from the act of sin he freely placed, and it remains until satisfaction is made (see PENANCE). This state of sin is called by theologians habitual sin, not in the sense that habitual sin implies a vicious habit, but in the sense that it signifies a state of aversion from God depending on the preceding actual sin, consequently voluntary and imputable. This state of aversion carries with it necessarily in the present order of God's providence the privation of grace and charity by means of which man is ordered to his supernatural end. The privation of grace is the "macula peccati" (St. Thomas, I-II, Q. lxxxvi), the stain of sin spoken of in Scripture (Jos., xxii, 17; Isaias, iv, 4; 1 Cor., vi, 11). It is not anything positive, a quality or disposition, an obligation to suffer, an extrinsic denomination coming from sin, but is solely the privation of sanctifying grace. There is not a real but only a conceptual distinction between habitual sin (reatus culpæ) and the stain of sin (macula peccati). One and the same privation considered as destroying the due order of man to God is habitual sin, considered as depriving the soul of the beauty of grace is the stain or "macula" of sin. The second effect of sin is to entail the penalty of undergoing suffering (reatus pænæ). Sin (reatus culpæ) is the cause of this obligation (reatus pænæ). The suffering may be inflicted in this life through the medium of medicinal punishments, calamities, sickness, temporal evils, which tend to withdraw from sin; or it may be inflicted in the life to come by the justice of God as vindictive punishment. The punishments of the future life are proportioned to the sin committed, and it is the obligation of undergoing this punishment for unrepented sin that is signified by the "reatus poenæ" of the theologians. The penalty to be undergone in the future life is divided into the pain of loss (pæna damni) and the pain of sense (pæna sensus). The pain of loss is the privation of the beatific vision of God in punishment of turning away from Him. The pain of sense is suffering in punishment of the conversion to some created thing in place of God. This two-fold pain in punishment of mortal sin is eternal (I Cor., vi, 9; Matt., xxv, 41; Mark, ix, 45). One mortal sin suffices to incur punishment. (See HELL.) Other effects of sins are: remorse of conscience (Wisdom, v, 2-13); an inclination towards evil, as habits are formed by a repetition of similar acts; a darkening of the intelligence, a hardening of the will (Matt., xiii, 14-15; Rom., xi, 8); a general vitiating of nature, which does not however totally destroy the substance and faculties of the soul but merely weakens the right exercise of its faculties. IV. VENIAL SIN Venial sin is essentially different from mortal sin. It does not avert us from our true last end, it does not destroy charity, the principle of union with God, nor deprive the soul of sanctifying grace, and it is intrinsically reparable. It is called venial precisely because, considered in its own proper nature, it is pardonable; in itself meriting, not eternal, but temporal punishment. It is distinguished from mortal sin on the part of the disorder. By mortal sin man is entirely averted from God, his true last end, and, at least implicitly, he places his last end in some created thing. By venial sin he is not averted from God, neither does he place his last end in creatures. He remains united with God by charity, but does not tend towards Him as he ought. The true nature of sin as it is contrary to the eternal law, repugnant namely to the primary end of the law, is found only in mortal sin. Venial sin is only in an imperfect way contrary to the law, since it is not contrary to the primary end of the law, nor does it avert man from the end intended by the law. (St. Thomas, I-II, Q. lxxxviii, a. 1; and Cajetan, I-II, Q. lxxxviii, a. 1, for the sense of the præter legem and contra legem of St. Thomas). Definition Since a voluntary act and its disorder are of the essence of sin, venial sin as it is a voluntary act may be defined as a thought, word or deed at variance with the law of God. It retards man in the attainment of his last end while not averting him from it. Its disorder consists either in the not fully deliberate choosing of some object prohibited by the law of God, or in the deliberate adhesion to some created object not as an ultimate end but as a medium, which object does not avert the sinner from God, but is not, however, referable to Him as an end. Man cannot be averted from God except by deliberately placing his last end in some created thing, and in venial sin he does not adhere to any temporal good, enjoying it as a last end, but as a medium referring it to God not actually but habitually inasmuch as he himself is ordered to God by charity. "Ille qui peccat venialiter, inhæret bono temporali non ut fruens, quia non constituit in eo finem, sed ut utens, referens in Deum no n actu sed habitu" (I-II:88:1, ad 3). For a mortal sin, some created good must be adhered to as a last end at least implicitly. This adherence cannot be accomplished by a semi-deliberate act. By adhering to an object that is at variance with the law of God and yet not destructive of the primary end of the Divine law, a true opposition is not set up between God and that object. The created good is not desired as an end. The sinner is not placed in the position of choosing between God and creature as ultimate ends that are opposed, but is in such a condition of mind that if the object to which he adheres were prohibited as contrary to his true last end he would not adhere to it, but would prefer to keep friendship with God. An example may be had in human friendship. A friend will refrain from doing anything that of itself will tend directly to dissolve friendship while allowing himself at times to do what is displeasing to his friends without destroying friendship. The distinction between mortal and venial sin is set forth in Scripture. From St. John (I John, v, 16-17) it is clear there are some sins "unto death" and some sins not "unto death", i.e. mortal and venial. The classic text for the distinction of mortal and venial sin is that of St. Paul (I Cor., iii, 8-15), where he explains in detail the distinction between mortal and venial sin. "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." By wood, hay, and stubble are signified venial sins (St. Thomas, I-II:89:2) which, built on the foundation of a living faith in Christ, do not destroy charity, and from their very nature do not merit eternal but temporal punishment. "Just as", says St. Thomas, [wood, hay, and stubble] "are gathered together in a house and do not pertain to the substance of the edifice, so also venial sins are multiplied in man, the spiritual edifice remaining, and for these he suffers either the fire of temporal tribulations in this life, or of purgatory after this life and nevertheless obtains eternal salvation." (ibid.) The suitableness of the division into wood, hay, and stubble is explained by St. Thomas (iv, dist. 21, Q. i, a. 2). Some venial sins are graver than others and less pardonable, and this difference is well signified by the difference in the inflammability of wood, hay, and stubble. That there is a distinction between mortal and venial sins is of faith (Counc. of Trent, sess. VI, c. xi and canons 23-25; sess. XIV, de poenit., c. v). This distinction is commonly rejected by all heretics ancient and modern. In the fourth century Jovinian asserted that all sins are equal in guilt and deserving of the same punishment (St. Aug., "Ep. 167", ii, n. 4); Pelagius (q.v.), that every sin deprives man of justice and therefore is mortal; Wyclif, that there is no warrant in Scripture for differentiating mortal from venial sin, and that the gravity of sin depends not on the quality of the action but on the decree of predestination or reprobation so that the worst crime of the predestined is infinitely less than the slightest fault of the reprobate; Hus, that all the actions of the vicious are mortal sins, while all the acts of the good are virtuous (Denz.-Bann., 642); Luther, that all sins of unbelievers are mortal and all sins of the regenerate, with the exception of infidelity, are venial; Calvin, like Wyclif, bases the difference between mortal sin and venial sin on predestination, but adds that a sin is venial because of the faith of the sinner. The twentieth among the condemned propositions of Baius reads: "There is no sin venial in its nature, but every sin merits eternal punishment" (Denz.-Bann., 1020). Hirscher in more recent times taught that all sins which are fully deliberate are mortal, thus denying the distinction of sins by reason of their objects and making the distinction rest on the imperfection of the act (Kleutgen, 2nd ed., II, 284, etc.). Malice of Venial Sin The difference in the malice of mortal and venial sin consists in this: that mortal sin is contrary to the primary end of the eternal law, that it attacks the very substance of the law which commands that no created thing should be preferred to God as an end, or equalled to Him, while venial sin is only at variance with the law, not in contrary opposition to it, not attacking its substance. The substance of the law remaining, its perfect accomplishment is prevented by venial sin. Conditions Venial sin is committed when the matter of the sin is light, even though the advertence of the intellect and consent of the will are full and deliberate, and when, even though the matter of the sin be grave, there is not full advertence on the part of the intellect and full consent on the part of the will. A precept obliges sub gravi when it has for its object an important end to be attained, and its transgression is prohibited under penalty of losing God's friendship. A precept obliges sub levi when it is not so directly imposed. Effects Venial sin does not deprive the soul of sanctifying grace, or diminish it. It does not produce a macula, or stain, as does mortal sin, but it lessens the lustre of virtue -- "In anima duplex est nitor, unus quiden habitualis, ex gratia sanctificante, alter actualis ex actibus virtutem, jamvero peccatum veniale impedit quidem fulgorem qui ex actibus virtutum oritur, non autem habitualem nitorem, quia non excludit nec minuit habitum charitatis" (I-II:89:1). Frequent and deliberate venial sin lessens the fervour of charity, disposes to mortal sin (I-II:88:3), and hinders the reception of graces God would otherwise give. It displeases God (Apoc., ii, 4-5) and obliges the sinner to temporal punishment either in this life or in Purgatory. We cannot avoid all venial sin in this life. "Although the most just and holy occasionally during this life fall into some slight and daily sins, known as venial, they cease not on that account to be just" (Counc. of Trent, sess. VI, c. xi). And canon xxiii says: "If any one declare that a man once justified cannot sin again, or that he can avoid for the rest of his life every sin, even venial, let him be anathema", but according to the common opinion we can avoid all such as are fully deliberate. Venial sin may coexist with mortal sin in those who are averted from God by mortal sin. This fact does not change its nature or intrinsic reparability, and the fact that it is not coexistent with charity is not the result of venial sin, but of mortal sin. It is per accidens, for an extrinsic reason, that venial sin in this case is irreparable, and is punished in hell. That venial sin may appear in its true nature as essentially different from mortal sin it is considered as de facto coexisting with charity (I Cor., iii, 8-15). Venial sins do not need the grace of absolution. They can be remitted by prayer, contrition, fervent communion, and other pious works. Nevertheless it is laudable to confess them (Denz.-Bann., 1539). V. PERMISSION OF SIN AND REMEDIES. Since it is of faith that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and all good it is difficult to account for sin in His creation. The existence of evil is the underlying problem in all theology. Various explanations to account for its existence have been offered, differing according to the philosophical principles and religious tenets of their authors. Any Catholic explanation must take into account the defined truths of the omnipotence, omniscience, and goodness of God; free will on the part of man; and the fact that suffering is the penalty of sin. Of metaphysical evil, the negation of a greater good, God is the cause inasmuch as he has created beings with limited forms. Of physical evil (malum pænæ) He is also the cause. Physical evil, considered as it proceeds from God and is inflicted in punishment of sin in accordance with the decrees of Divine justice, is good, compensating for the violation of order by sin. It is only in the subject affected by it that it is evil. Of moral evil (malum culpæ) God is not the cause (Counc. of Trent, sess. VI, can. vi), either directly or indirectly. Sin is a violation of order, and God orders all things to Himself, as an ultimate end, consequently He cannot be the direct cause of sin. God's withdrawal of grace which would prevent the sin does not make Him the indirect cause of sin inasmuch as this withdrawal is affected according to the decrees of His Divine wisdom and justice in punishment of previous sin. He is under no obligation of impeding the sin, consequently it cannot be imputed to Him as a cause (I-II:79:1). When we read in Scripture and the Fathers that God inclines men to sin the sense is, either that in His just judgment He permits men to fall into sin by a punitive permission, exercising His justice in punishment of past sin; or that He directly causes, not sin, but certain exterior works, good in themselves, which are so abused by the evil wills of men that here and now they commit evil; or that He gives them the power of accomplishing their evil designs. Of the physical act in sin God is the cause inasmuch as it is an entity and good. Of the malice of sin man's evil will is the sufficient cause. God could not be impeded in the creation of man by the fact that He foresaw his fall. This would mean the limiting of His omnipotence by a creature, and would be destructive of Him. He was free to create man even though He foresaw his fall, and He created him, endowed him with free will, and gave him sufficient means of persevering in good had he so willed. We must sum up our ignorance of the permission of evil by saying in the words of St. Augustine, that God would not have permitted evil had He not been powerful enough to bring good out of evil. God's end in creating this universe is Himself, not the good of man, and somehow or other good and evil serve His ends, and there shall finally be a restoration of violated order by Divine justice. No sin shall be without its punishment. The evil men do must be atoned for either in this world by penance (see PENANCE) or in the world to come in purgatory or hell, according as the sin that stains the soul, and is not repented of, is mortal or venial, and merits eternal or temporal punishment. (See EVIL.) God has provided a remedy for sin and manifested His love and goodness in the face of man's ingratitude by the Incarnation of His Divine Son (see INCARNATION); by the institution of His Church to guide men and interpret to them His law, and administer to them the sacraments, seven channels of grace, which, rightly used, furnish an adequate remedy for sin and a means to union with God in heaven, which is the end of His law. VI. SENSE OF SIN. The understanding of sin, as far as it can be understood by our finite intelligence, serves to unite man more closely to God. It impresses him with a salutary fear, a fear of his own powers, a fear, if left to himself, of falling from grace; with the necessity he lies under of seeking God's help and grace to stand firm in the fear and love of God, and make progress in the spiritual life. Without the acknowledgment that the present moral state of man is not that in which God created him, that his powers are weakened; that he has a supernatural end to attain, which is impossible of attainment by his own unaided efforts, without grace there being no proportion between the end and the means; that the world, the flesh, and the devil are in reality active agents fighting against him and leading him to serve them instead of God, sin cannot be understood. The evolutionary hypothesis would have it that physical evolution accounts for the physical origin of man, that science knows no condition of man in which man exhibited the characteristics of the state of original justice, no state of sinlessness. The fall of man in this hypothesis is in reality a rise to a higher grade of being. "A fall it might seem, just as a vicious man sometimes seems degraded below the beasts, but in promise and potency, a rise it really was" (Sir O. Lodge, "Life and Matter", p. 79). This teaching is destructive of the notion of sin as taught by the Catholic Church. Sin is not a phase of an upward struggle, it is rather a deliberate, wilful refusal to struggle. If there has been no fall from a higher to a lower state, then the teaching of Scripture in regard to Redemption and the necessity of a baptismal regeneration is unintelligible. The Catholic teaching is the one that places sin in its true light, that justifies the condemnation of sin we find in Scripture. The Church strives continually to impress her children with a sense of the awfulness of sin that they may fear it and avoid it. We are fallen creatures, and our spiritual life on earth is a warfare. Sin is our enemy, and while of our own strength we cannot avoid sin, with God's grace we can. If we but place no obstacle to the workings of grace we can avoid all deliberate sin. If we have the misfortune to sin, and seek God's grace and pardon with a contrite and humble heart, He will not repel us. Sin has its remedy in grace, which is given us by God, through the merits of His only-begotten Son, Who has redeemed us, restoring by His passion and death the order violated by the sin of our first parents, and making us once again children of God and heirs of heaven. Where sin is looked on as a necessary and unavoidable condition of things human, where inability to avoid sin is conceived as necessary, discouragement naturally follows. Where the Catholic doctrine of the creation of man in a superior state, his fall by a wilful transgression, the effects of which fall are by Divine decree transmitted to his posterity, destroying the balance of the human faculties and leaving man inclined to evil; where the dogmas of redemption and grace in reparation of sin are kept in mind, there is no discouragement. Left to ourselves we fall, by keeping close to God and continually seeking His help we can stand and struggle against sin, and if faithful in the battle we must wage shall be crowned in heaven. (See CONSCIENCE; JUSTIFICATION; SCANDAL.) DOGMATIC WORKS: ST. THOMAS, Summa theol., I-II, QQ. lxxi-lxxxix; IDEM, Contra gentes, tr. RICKABY, Of God and His Creatures (London, 1905); IDEM, Quaest. disputatae: De malo in Opera omnia (Paris, 1875); BILLUART, De peccatis (Paris, 1867-72); SUAREZ, De pecc. in Opera omnia (Paris, 1878); SALMANTICENSES, De pecc. in Curs. theol. (Paris, 1877); GONET, Clypeus theol. thom. (Venice, 1772); JOHN OF ST. THOMAS, De pecc. in Curs. theol. (Paris, 1886); SYLVIUS, De pecc. (Antwerp, 1698); Catechismus Romanus, tr. DONOVAN, Catechism of the Council of Trent (Dublin, 1829); SCHEEBEN, Handbuch d. kath. Dogmatik (Freiburg, 1873-87); MANNING, Sin and its Consequences (New York, 1904); SHARPE, Principles of Christianity (London, 1904); IDEM, Evil, its Nature and Cause (London, 1906); BILLOT, De nat. et rat. peccati personalis (Rome, 1900); TANQUEREY, Synopsis theol., I (New York, 1907). A.C. O'NEIL Sinai Sinai The mountain on which the Mosaic Law was given. Horeb and Sinai were thought synonymous by St. Jerome ("De situ et nom. Hebr.", in P.L., XXIII, 889), W. Gesenius amd, more recently, G. Ebers (p. 381). Ewald, Ed. Robinson. E.H. Palmer, and others think Horeb denoted the whole mountainous region about Sinai (Ex., xvii, 6). The origin of the name Sinai is disputed. It seems to be an adjective from the Hebrew word for "the desert" (Ewald and Ebers) or "the moon-god" (E. Schrader and others). The mount was called Sinai, or "the mount of God" probably before the time of Moses (Josephus, "Antiq. Jud.", II, xii.) The name is now given to the triangular peninsula lying between the desert of Southern Palestine, the Red Sea, and the gulfs of Akabah and Suez, with an area of about 10,000 square miles, which was the scene of the forty years' wandering of the Israelites after the Exodus from Egypt. The principal topographical features are two. North of the Jabal et-Tih (3200 to 3950 feet) stretches an arid plateau, the desert of Tih, marked by numerous Wadis, notably El-Arish, the "River of Egypt", which formed the southern boundary of the Promised Land (Gen., xv, 18; Num., xxxiv, 5). South of Jabal et-Tih rises a mountainous mass of granite streaked with porphyry, dividing into three principal groups: the western, Jabal Serbal (6750 feet); the central, Jabal Musa (7380 feet), Jabal Catherine (8560 feet), and Jabal Um Schomer (8470 feet); the eastern, Jabal Thebt (7906 feet) and Jabal Tarfa, which terminates in Ras Mohammed. It is among these mountains that Jewish and Christian tradition places the Sinai of the Bible, but the precise location is uncertain. It is Jabal Musa, according to a tradition traceable back to the fourth century, when St. Silvia of Aquitaine was there. Jabal Musa is defended by E.H. and H.S. Palmer, Vigouroux, Lagrange, and others. However, the difficulty of applying Ex., xix, 12, to Jabal Musa and the inscriptions found near Jabal Serbal have led some to favour Serbal. This was the opinion of St. Jerome (P.L., XXIII, 916, 933) and Cosmas (P.G., LXXXVIII, 217), and more recently of Birkhard and Lepsius, and it has of late been very strongly defended by G. Ebers, not to mention Beke, Gressmann, and others, who consider the whole story about Sinai (Ex., xix) only a mythical interpretation of some volcanic eruption. The more liberal critics, while agreeing generally that the Jewish traditions represented by the "Priest-Codex" and "Elohistic documents" place Sinai among the mountains in the south-central part of the peninsula, yet disagree as to its location by the older "Jahvistic" tradition (Ex., ii, 15, 16, 21; xviii, 1, 5). A. von Gall, whose opinion Welhausen thinks the best sustained, contends that Meribar (D. V. Temptation. - Ex., xvii, 14), that the Israelites never went so far south as Jabal Mûsa, and hence that Sinai must be looked for in Madian, on the east coast of Akabar. Others (cf. Winckler, II, p.29; Smend, p. 35, n. 2; and Weill, opp. Cit. Infra in bibliography) look for Sinai in the near neighbourhood of Cades (Ayn Qâdis) in Southern Palestine. Sinai was the refuge of many Christian anchorites during the third-century persecutions of the Church. There are traces of a fourth-century monastery near Mount Serbal. In 527 the Emperor Justinian built the famous convent of Mt. Sinai on the north foot of Jabal Mûsa, which has been known since the ninth century as St. Catherine's. Its small library contains about 500 volumes of valuable manuscripts in Greek, Arabic, Syriac, Ethiopic, etc. It was here that Tischendorf, during his researches in 1844, 1853, and 1859, found a very ancient Greek MS. (since known as the "Codex Sinaiticus") containing most of the Septuagint, all the new Testament, the "Epistle of Barnabas" and the first part of the "Shepherd" of Hermas. Forty-three MS. Pages found by him are preserved at the University of Leipzig and known as the "Codex Friderico-Augustanus". In 1892 Mrs. Smith Lewis found at Sinai a fourth-century palimpsest Syriac text of St. Luke's Gospel. Sinai is rich in valuable inscriptions. M. de Vogüé gives 3200 Egyptian and Semitic inscriptions found in the Wâdi Mukatteb, the ruins of the temple of Ischta, or Astaroth-Carmain, and the iron and turquoise mines and granite and marble quarries, which were extensively worked under the twelfth and eighteenth Egyptian dynasties. The present population of Sinai is 4000 to 6000 semi-nomadic Arabs, Mohammedans, governed by their tribal sheikhs and immediately subject to the commandant of the garrison at Qal' at un-Nakhl, under the Intelligence Department of the Egyptian War Office at Cairo. NICHOLAS REAGAN Sinaloa Sinaloa DIOCESE OF SINALOA (SINALOENSIS) Diocese in the Republic of Mexico, suffragan of the Archdiocese of Durango. Its area is that of the State of Sinaloa, 27,552 sq. miles, and its population (1910) 323,499. Culiacan, the capital of the state and residence of the bishop and governor, counts a population (1910) of 13,578. The present territory of Sinaloa was discovered in 1530 by the ill-reputed D. Nuño de Guzman who founded the city of San Miguel de Culiacan. A few Spaniards established a colony there. The province of Culiacan was soon obliged to face the terrors of war brought upon it by the barbarous cruelties of Nuño and his favourite, Diego Hernandez de Proaño. So frightened was Nuño by the terrible insurrection that he removed Proaño, placing in his stead Cristóbal de Tapia, whose humanitarian measures slowly restored confidence. Although colonized from the beginning of the sixteenth century, most of the territory, excepting a few strong places, was inhabited by fierce pagan tribes, for whose conversion the Jesuits laboured early in the seventeenth century. After having subdued and evangelized the Indians of the mission of Piaxtla in a comparatively short time, and after having turned over to the Bishop of Durango the settlements under their control, the Jesuits extended their domination over the Indians living in the northern part of the actual state and at the time of their expulsion (by decree of Charles III) they fruitfully administered the missions of Chinipas and Sinaloa. In Chinipas they had residences at Guasarapes, Santa Ana, Secora, Moris, Barbaroco, Santa Ines, Serocagui, Tubares, Satebó, Baborigame, Nabogame, and San Andres; in Sinaloa (misión del Fuerte) they had residences at Mocorito, Nio, Guazave, Chicorato, Mochicave, Batacosa, Conicari, Tehueco, Ocoroni, and Bacubirito. It is notable that the towns of the misión del Rio Yaqui, which now belong to the Diocese of Sonora, were then included in the mission of Sinaloa. When the See of Durango was founded in 1620, Sinaloa, which until then had belonged to the Diocese of Guadalajara, became part of it; on the foundation (1780) of the Diocese of Sonora, it became a part of the latter. However, the residence of the bishop, after having been successively at Arispe and Alamo, passed to Culiacan, capital of Sinaloa until 1883, when Leo XIII founded the Diocese of Sinaloa, which had formed part of the ecclesiastical province of Guadalajara, and the Bishop of Sonora removed to Hermosillo. In 1891, when the new archiepiscopal See of Durango was created, Sinaloa became one of its suffragans. The diocese has 1 seminary with 18 students; 10 parochial schools; 3 colleges with 677 students. CAMILLUS CRIVELLI Sinigaglia Sinigaglia (SENIGALLIA), DIOCESE OF SINIGAGLIA (SENOGALLIENSIS) Diocese in the Province of Ancona in the Marches (Central Italy). The city is situated on the Adriatic at the mouth of the Misa, which divides it into two parts. Maritime commerce, the cultivation and manufacture of silk, agriculture, and cattle-raising from the means of support of the population. The fortifications constructed by the dukes of Urbino and by the popes still remain in part. Among the churches besides the cathedral, that of Santa Maria delle Grazie (1491) without the city walls deserves mention; it possesses a Madonna with six saints by Perugino, and another Madonna by Piero della Francesca. The name Senigallia records the Senones, a tribe of Gauls who possessed this city before its conquest by the Romans. The latter founded a colony here called Sena Hadria, but later the name most commonly used was Senogallia or Senigallia. In the Civil War (B.C. 82) it was sacked by Pompey, then one of Sulla's generals. It was pillaged a second time by Alaric, A.D. 408. Under the Byzantine rule it belonged to the so-called Pentapolis. Several times in the sixth and eighth centuries the Lombards attempted to capture it, and, in fact, shortly before the city was bestowed upon the Holy See it was the seat of a Duke Arioldo, who in 772 owed allegiance to King Desiderius. It afterwards shared the vicissitudes of the March of Ancona, and at the end of the twelfth century was the seat of a count. In the wars between the popes and Frederick II it belonged for the most part to the party of the Guelphs, for which reason it sustained many sieges, and was in 1264 sacked by Percivale Doria, captain of King Manfred. Hardly recovered from this calamity, it fell into the power of Guido di Montefeltro (1280). In 1306 it was captured by Pandolfo Malatesta of Pesaro and remained in his family, notwithstanding that they were expelled by Cardinal Bertrando du Poyet and were expelled by Cardinal Albornoz (1355). In 1416 Ludovico Migliorati of Fermo and the cities of Ancona and Camerino formed a league against Galeotto Malatesta, and captured Sinigaglia, but they afterwards restored it. In 1445 it was take by Sigismondo Malatesta of Rimini, who also secured the investiture from Eugenius IV and fortified the city. After various vicissitudes Sinigaglia was (1474) given in fief to Giovanni della Rovere, a nephew of Sixtus IV. He married the last heiress of the duchy of Urbino, of which the city thus became a part (1508). In December, 1502, Sinigaglia, which had thrown open its gates to Caesar Borgia, was the scene of the celebrated treachery by which Borgia rid himself of his enemies, the petty lords of the Romagna. In 1624 it came under the immediate suzerainty of the popes. In 1683 Turkish pirates disembarked and plundered the city. Sinigaglia was the birthplace of Pius IX and B. Gherardo di Serra (fourteenth century). The patron saint of Sinigaglia is St. Paulinus, whose body is preserved in the cathedral (as is attested for the first time in 1397). He is, therefore, not identical with St. Paulinus of Nola, nor is it known to what epoch he belongs. The first bishop of certain date was Venantius (502). About 562 the bishop was St. Bonifacius, who at the time of the Lombard invasion was martyred by the Arians. Under Bishop Sigismundus (c. 590) the relics of St. Gaudentius, Bishop of Rimini and martyr, were transported to Sinigaglia. Other bishops of the diocese are: Robertus and Theodosius (1057), friends of St. Peter Damianus:; Jacopo (1232-1270), who rebuilt the cathedral which had been destroyed in 1264 by the Saracen troops of King Manfred; Francesco Mellini (1428), an Augustinian, who died at Rome, suffocated by the crowd at a consistory of Egenius IV. Under Bishop Antonio Colombella (1438), an Augustinian, Sigismondo Malatesta, lord of Sinigaglia, angered by his resistance to the destruction of certain houses, caused the cathedral and the episcopal palace to be demolished. The precious materials were transported to Rimini and were used in the construction of S. Francesco (tempio Malatestiano). Under Bishop Marco Vigerio Della Rovere (1513) the new cathedral was begun in 1540; it was consecrated in 1595 by Pietro Ridolfi (1591), a learned writer. Other bishops were Cardinal Antonio Barberini, a Capuchin brother of Urban VIII; Cardinal Domenico Poracciani (1714); Annibale della Genga (1816), who afterwards became Pope Leo XII. The diocese is suffragan of Urbino; it has 48 parishes with 114 secular and 78 regular clergy; 92,000 souls; 15 monasteries for men; 19 convents for women; and 3 institutes for female education. U. BENIGNI Sinis Sinis Sinis, a titular See in Armenia Secunda, suffragan of Melitene. The catalogue of titular bishoprics of the Roman Curia formerly contained a see of Sinita, in Armenia. When the list was revised in 1884, this name was replaced by Sinis, mentioned as belonging to Armenia Secunda, with Melitene, now Malatia, as its metropolis. Ptolemy, V. 7, 5, mentions a town called Siniscolon in Cappadocia at Melitene, near the Euphrates. Müller in his "Notes à Ptolemy" ed. Didot, I (Paris, 1901), 887, identifies this with Sinekli, a village near the Euphrates, "ab Argovan versus ortum hibernum", about nineteen miles north of Malatia in the vilayet of Mamouret ul-Aziz. But it seems certain that Siniscolon is a mis-reading for "Sinis Colonia", a form found in several Manuscripts. Ramsay, "Asia Minor", 71, 272, 314, reads Sinis for Pisonos in "Itinerar. Anton." and especially for Sinispora in the "Tabula Peutingeriana" (Sinis, Erpa), and places Sinis Colonia twenty-two Roman miles west of Melitene, on the road to Cæsarea. There is no mention of this town in the Greek "Notitiæ episcopatuum" among the suffragans of Melitene, and none of its bishops is known, so it seems never to have been a bishopric. S. PÉTRIDÈS. Sinope Sinope A titular see in Asia Minor, suffragan of Amasea in Helenopontus. It is a Greek colony, situated on a peninsula on the coast of Paphlagonia, of very early origin, some attributing its foundation to the Argonaut Autolycus, a companion of Hercules. Later it received a colony from Miletus which seems to have been expelled or conquered by the Cimmerians (Herodotus, IV, 12); but in 632 B.C. the Greeks succeeded again in capturing it. Henceforth Sinope enjoyed great prosperity and founded several colonies, among them being Cerasus, Cotyora, and Trapezus. The town took part in the Peloponnesian War, supporting Athens. Zenophon stopped there with his forces on the retreat of the Ten thousand (Anab. V, v, 3; Diodor,. Sicul., XIV, 30, 32; Ammien Marcel., XXII, 8). Fruitlessly besieged in 220 B.C. by Mithridates IV, King of Pontus, Sinope was taken by Pharnaces in 183 B.C., and became the capital and residence of the kings of Pontus. It was the birthplace of Mithridates the Great, who adorned it with magnificent monuments and constructed large arsenals there for his fleet. Lkucullus captured it and gave it back its autonomy. Caesar also established the Colonia Julia Caesarea there in 45 B.C. when his supremacy began. Sinope was also the birthplace of the cynic philosopher, Diogenes, Diphilus, the comic poet, and Aquila, the Jew, who translated the Old Testament into Greek in the second century A.D. A Christian community existed there in the first half of the second century, with a bishop, the father of the celebrated heretic Marcion, whom he expelled from his diocese. Among its other bishops may be mentioned St. Phocas, venerated on 22 September, with St. Phocas, the gardener of the same town, who is possibly to be identified with him; Prohaeresios, present at the Councils of Gangres and Philippopolis in 343 and 344; Antiochus at the Council of Chalcedon, 451; Sergius at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, 681; Zeno, who was exiled in 712 for opposing Monothelitism; Gregory, present at the Seventh Council in 787, beheaded in 793 for revolting against the emperor, etc. A little before 1315 the Bishop of Sinope, driven out of his see by the Turks, received in compensation the metropoles of Sida and Sylaeos (Miklosich and Muller, "Acta patriarchatus Constantinopolitani", I, 34); the diocese must have been suppressed upon his death, as it is not mentioned in the "Notitiae episcopatuum" of the fifteenth century. In 1401 a Greek merchant who visited Sinope found everything in disorder as a result of the Turkish inroads (Wächter, "Der Verfall des Griechentums in Kleinasien im XIV. Jahrhundert", 20); however, the town, which had belonged to the Empire of Trapezus from 1204 was not captured till 1470 by Manomet II. In November, 1853, the Turkish fleet was destroyed by the Russians in the port of Sinope. Sinope is now the chief town of a sanjak of the vilayet of Castamouni, containing 15,000 inhabitants, about one half of whom are Greek schismatics. S. VAILHÉ Sion Sion Sion, a titular see in Asia Minor, suffragan of Ephesus. No civil document mentions it. It is numbered among the suffragans of Ephesus in the Greek "Notitiæ episcopatuum", from the seventh to the thirteenth century. [See Gelzer in "Abhandlungen der k. bayer. Akademie der Wiss.", I. Cl. XXI Bd. III Abth. (Munich, 1900), 536, 552; Idem, "Georgii Cyprii descriptio orbis romani" (Leipzig, 1890), 8, 62; Parthey, "Hierocles Synecdemus e Notit. gr. episcopat. (Berlin, 1866), 61, 103, 155, 167, 203, 245.] The names of only three bishops of Sion are known: Nestorius, present at the Council of Ephesus, 431; John, at the Council in Trullo, 692; Philip, represented at Nicæa, 787, by the priest Theognis (Le Quien, "Oriens christianus", I, 721). This author asks if Basil, Bishop poleos Asaion represented at Chalcedon, 451, by his metropolitan does not belong to Sion; it is more likely that he was Bishop of Assus. Ramsay ("Asia Minor", 105) thinks that Sion is probably the same town as Tianae, or Tiarae mentioned by Pliny, V, 33, 3, and Hierocles, 661, 8, and Attaca, mentioned by Strabo, XIII, 607; but this is very doubtful. In any case the site of Sion is unknown. S. PÉTRIDÈS. Diocese of Sion Sion (Sedunensis) A Swiss bishopric, depending directly on the Holy See. HISTORY The Diocese of Sion is the oldest in Switzerland and one of the oldest north of the Alps. At first its see was at Octodurum, now called Martinach, or Martigny. According to tradition there was a Bishop of Octodurum, named Oggerius, as early as a.d. 300. However, the first authenticated bishop is St. Theodore (d. 391), who was present at the Council of Aquileia in 381. On the spot where the Abbey of Saint-Maurice now stands he built a church in honour of St. Mauritius, martyred here about 300. He also induced the hermits of the vicinity to unite in a common life, thus beginning the Abbey of Saint-Maurice, the oldest north of the Alps. Theodore rebuilt the church at Sion, which had been destroyed by Emperor Maximianus at the beginning of the fourth century. At first the diocese was a suffragan of Vienne; later it became suffragan of Tarentaise. In 589 the bishop, St. Heliodorus, transferred the see to Sion, as Octodurum was frequently endangered by the inundations of the Rhone and the Drance. There were frequent disputes with the monks of the Abbey of Saint-Maurice, who were jealously watchful that the bishops should not extend their jurisdiction over the abbey. Several of the bishops united both offices, as: Wilcharius (764-80), previously Archbishop of Vienne, from which he had been driven by the Saracens; St. Alteus, who received from the pope a Bull of exemption in favour of the monastery (780); Aimo II, son of Count Hubert of Savoy, who entertained Leo IX at Saint-Maurice in 1049. The last king of Upper Burgundy, Rudolph III, granted the Countship of Valais to Bishop Hugo (998- 1017); this union of the spiritual and secular powers made the bishop the most powerful ruler in the valley of the Upper Rhone. Taking this donation as a basis, the bishops of Sion extended their secular power, and the religious metropolis of the valley became also the political centre. However, the union of the two powers was the cause of violent disputes in the following centuries. For, while the spiritual jurisdiction of the bishop extended over the whole valley of the Rhone above Lake Geneva, the Countship of Valais included only the upper part of the valley, reaching to the confluence of the Trient and the Rhone. The attempts of the bishops of Sion to carry their secular power farther down the Rhone were bitterly and successfully opposed by the abbots of Saint-Maurice, who had obtained large possessions in Lower Valais. The medieval bishops of Sion belonged generally to noble families of Savoy and Valais and were often drawn into the feuds of these families. Moreover the bishops were vigorously opposed by the petty feudal nobles of Valais, who, trusting to their fortified castles on rocky heights, sought to evade the supremacy of the bishop who was at the same time count and prefect of the Holy Roman Empire. Other opponents of the bishops were the flourishing peasant communities of Upper Valais, which were called later the sieben Zehnten (seven-tenths). Their struggles with Savoy forced the bishops to grant continually increasing political rights to the peasant communities. Thus Bishop William IV of Raron (1437-57) was obliged to relinquish civil and criminal jurisdiction over the sieben Zehnten by the Treaty of Naters in 1446, while a revolt of his subjects compelled Bishop Jost of Silinen (1482-96) to flee from the diocese. Walter II of Supersax (1457-82) took part in the battles of the Swiss against Charles the Bold of Burgundy and his confederate, the Duke of Savoy, and in 1475 drove the House of Savoy from Lower Valais. The most important bishop of this era was Matthew Schinner (1499-1522), a highly cultivated Humanist. Bishop Schinner, fearing that French supremacy would endanger the freedom of the Swiss, placed the military force of the diocese at the disposal of the pope and in 1510 brought about an alliance for five years between the Swiss Confederacy and the Roman Church. In return for this Julius II made the bishop a cardinal. In 1513 the bishop had succeeded in having his diocese separated from the Archdiocese of Tarentaise and placed directly under the control of the pope. The defeat of the Swiss in 1515 at the battle of Marignano, at which Schinner himself fought, weakened his position in the diocese, and the arbitrary rule of his brothers led to a revolt of his subjects; in 1518 he was obliged to leave the diocese. The new doctrines of the Reformation found little acceptance in Valais, although preachers were sent into the canton from Berne, Zurich, and Basle. In 1529 Bishop Adrian I of Riedmatten (1529-48), the cathedral chapter, and the sieben Zehnten formed an alliance with the Catholic cantons of the Confederation, the purpose of which was to maintain and protect the Catholic Faith in all the territories of the allied cantons against the efforts of the Reformed cantons. On account of this alliance Valais aided in gaining the victory of the Catholics over the followers of Zwingli at Cappel in 1531; this victory saved the possessions of the Catholic Church in Switzerland. The abbots of Saint-Maurice opposed all religious innovations as energetically as did Bishops Adrian I of Riedmatten, Hildebrand of Riedmatten (1565-1604), and Adrian II of Riedmatten (1604-13), so that the whole of Valais remained Catholic. Both Adrian II and his successor Hildebrand Jost (1613-38) were again involved in disputes with the sieben Zehnten in regard to the exercise of the rights of secular supremacy. In order to put an end to these quarrels and not to endanger the Catholic Faith he relinquished in 1630 the greater part of his rights as secular suzerain, and the power of the bishop was thereafter limited almost entirely to the spiritual sphere. The secular power of the bishops was brought to an end by the French Revolution. In 1798 Valais, after an heroic struggle against the supremacy of France, was incorporated into the Helvetian Republic, and Bishop John Anthony Blatter (1790-1817) retired to Novara. During the sway of Napoleon Valais was separated from Switzerland in 1802 as the Rhodanic Republic, and in 1810 was united with France. Most of the monasteries were suppressed. In 1814 Valais threw off French supremacy, when the Allies entered the territory; in 1815 it joined Switzerland as one of the cantons. As partial compensation for the loss of his secular power the bishop received a post of honour in the Diet of the canton and the right to four votes. Disputes often arose as the Constitution of 1815 of the canton gave Upper Valais political predominance in the cantonal government, notwithstanding the fact that its population was smaller than that of Lower Valais. This led in 1840 to a civil war with Lower Valais, where the "Young Swiss" party, hostile to the Church, were in control. The party friendly to the Church conquered, it is true, and the influence of the Church over teaching was, at first, preserved, but on account of the defeat of the Sonderband, with which Valais had united, a radical Government gained control in 1847. The new administration at once showed itself unfriendly to the Church, secularized many church landed properties, and wrung large sums of money from the bishop and monasteries. When in 1856 the moderate party gained the cantonal election, negotiations were begun with Bishop Peter Joseph von Preux (1843-75), and friendly relations were restored between the diocese and the canton. In 1880 the two powers came to an agreement as to the lands taken from the Church in 1848; these, so far as they had not been sold, were given back for their original uses. Since then the bishop and the Government have been on friendly terms. The new Constitution of 1907 declares the Catholic religion to be the religion of the canton, and forbids any union of spiritual and secular functions. The ordinances regulating the election of a bishop which have been in existence from early times, at least, contradict this (see below). The present bishop is Julius Mauritius Abbet, b. 12 Sept., 1845, appointed auxiliary bishop cum jure successionis 1 Oct., 1895, succeeded to the see 26 Feb., 1901. STATISTICS The boundaries of the Diocese of Valais have hardly been changed since it was founded; the diocese includes the Upper Rhone Valley, that is, the Canton of Valais, with exception of the exempt Abbey of Saint-Maurice, and of the Catholic inhabitants of Saint-Gingolph, who belong to the French Diocese of Annecy; it also includes the parishes of Bex and Aigle that belong to the Canton of Vaud. In 1911 the diocese had 11 deaneries, 125 parishes, 70 chaplaincies, 208 secular priests, 135 regular priests and professed, about 120,000 Catholics. Nearly 30 per cent of the population of the diocese speak German, and nearly 65 percent French; the language of the rest of the population is Italian. The bishop is elected by the denominationally mixed Great Council from a list of four candidates presented by the cathedral chapter, and the election is laid before the pope for confirmation. The cathedral chapter consists of ten canons; in addition five rectors are included among the cathedral clergy. The clergy are trained at a seminary for priests at Sion that has six ecclesiastical professors and twelve resident students; there are also six theological students studying at the University of Innsbruck. The religious orders of men in the diocese are: Augustinian Canons, with houses on the Great St. Bernard, the Simplon, and at Martigny, containing altogether 45 priests, 6 professed and 7 lay-brothers; Capuchins, at Sion and Saint-Maurice, numbering 22 priests, 6 students of theology, and 9 lay-brothers. The exempt abbey of Augustinian Canons at Saint-Maurice contains 46 priests, 9 professed and lay- brothers. The orders and congregations of nuns in the diocese are: Bernardines at Colombay; Hospital Sisters at Sion; Sisters of St. Vincent de Paul at Saint-Maurice; Franciscan Nuns, at the same place; Sisters of Charity of the Holly Cross at Sion, Leuk, and Leukerbad; Ursuline Nuns at Sion and Brieg. Briguet, Vallesia christ. seu dioec. Sedunensis hist. sacra (Sion, 1744); Boccard, Hist. du Valais (Geneva, 1844); Burgener, Die Heiligen des walliser Landes (Einsiedeln, 1857); Gremaud, CAtalogue des évêques de Sion (Lausanne, 1864); Idem, Doc. relatifs à l'hist. du Valais (Lausanne, 1875-84); Gay, Hist. du Valais (Geneva, 1888-89); Idem, Mélanges d'hist. valaisanne (Geneva, 1891); Rameau, Le Valais hist. (Sion, 1891); BÜchi, Die kath. Kirche der Schweiz (Munich, 1902); Bourbon, L'archevêque s. Vultchaire (Fribourg, 1900); Mélanges d'hist. et d'archéol. de la soc. helvétique de Saint-Maurice (1901); Grenat, Hist. moderne du Valais 1536-1815 (Geneva, 1904); Besson, Recherches sur les orig. des évêchés de Genève, Lausanne, Sion, etc. (Paris, 1906); Status venerabilis cleri dioec. Sedunen. (Sion, 1911); Blätter aus der walliser Gesch. (Sion, 1899-). Joseph Lins Sioux City Sioux City DIOCESE OF SIOUX CITY (SIOPOLITAN). Erected 15 Jan., 1902, by Leo XIII. The establishment of this diocese was provided for in the Bull appointing Most Rev. John J. Keane, D.D., to the Archbishopric of Dubuque on 24 July, 1900. This provision was made on the occasion of that appointment for the reason that the new diocese was taken entirely from Archdiocese of Dubuque. It comprises twenty-four counties in north-western Iowa, including a territory of 14,518 square miles. Sioux City is on the extreme limit of the western boundary of Iowa, situated on the east bank of the Missouri River, about one hundred miles north of Omaha. With the exception of Des Moines, the capital, it is the largest and most enterprising municipality in the State of Iowa, containing a population of between fifty and sixty thousand. It is in the midst of a large and rich agricultural country, and relies chiefly on the products of the soil, of which the staple article is corn; consequently grain-packing is the chief industry of Sioux City. The Catholic population of the diocese is almost sixty thousand. It has 138 churches, including missions, 122 priests, of whom 6 are religious (4 Friars Minor and 2 Fathers of the Sacred Heart); 53 parochial schools, with 4 hospitals; 4 academies; 2 schools of domestic science; an orphanage, a Good Shepherd home, an infant asylum, a home for the aged, and a working girls' home. There are 7327 children in the parish schools, and nearly 8000 under Catholic care. The composition of the Catholic population of the diocese is English-speaking and German. These form the principal elements of the Church's membership here, and are almost equally divided in numbers. A characteristic feature of western Catholicism is manifest here as in other western dioceses, that is the ardent desire of the people for parochial schools wherever it is possible. Out of the 10,000 children of school age (i.e. under seventeen years) in the diocese, three-fourths are in parochial schools. The following orders conduct schools and charitable institutions in the diocese: Sisters of Charity B.V.M., Sisters of Christian Charity, Sisters of St. Dominic, Sister of St. Francis (Dubuque, Iowa), Franciscan Sisters (Clinton, Iowa), Franciscan Sisters of Perpetual Adoration, School Sisters of St. Francis, Presentation Nuns, Servants of Mary, Sister of St. Benedict, Sisters of Mercy, Sisters of the Good Shepherd. Since its establishment nine years ago, the diocese is thoroughly organized and has been constantly expanding by the erection of churches, schools, and expanding by the erection of churches, schools, and other institutions. The present bishop, the Right Reverend Philip J. Garrigan, D.D., first bishop of the diocese, was born in Ireland in the early forties, came to this country with his parents, and received his elementary education in the public schools of Lowell, Mass. He pursued his classical course at St. Charles's College, Ellicott City, Maryland, and courses of philosophy and theology at the Provincial Seminary of New York at Troy, where he was ordained on 11 June, 1870. After a short term as curate of St. John's Church, Worcester, Massachusetts, he was appointed director of the Troy seminary for three years; and was for fourteen years afterwards pastor of St. Bernard's Church, Fitchburg, Massachusetts. In the fall of 1888 he was appointed first vice-rector of the Catholic University at Washington, D. C., which position he also held for fourteen years. He was named Bishop of Sioux City on 21 March, 1902, and consecrated at the see of his home diocese, Springfield, Massachusetts, on 25 May of the same year, by the Right Rev. T.D. Beaven, and on 18 June following took possession of his see. PHILIP J. GARRIGAN Sioux Falls Sioux Falls DIOCESE OF SIOUX FALLS (SIOUXORMENSIS). Suffragan of St. Paul, comprises all that part of the State of South Dakota east of the Missouri River, an area of 34,861 square miles. The western portion of the state, forming the present Diocese of Lead, was detached from the Diocese of Sioux Falls, 8 August, 1902. The early history of religion in South Dakota (until 1879) must be sought for in the histories respectively of St. Paul, Dubuque, and Nebraska. The first Mass celebrated in South Dakota was in 1842, in Brown County, by the late Monsignor Ravoux of St. Paul on his first visit to the Sioux Indians; and the first church erected was in 1867, by the late Father Pierre Boucher, who was sent by Bishop Grace of St. Paul to Jefferson, Union County, to attend the Catholics scattered about that centre. In August, 1879, the Vicariate Apostolic of Dakota, whose boundaries corresponded with the ten existing civil boundaries of the newly formed Territory of Dakota, was established, and the Right Reverend Martin Marty, Abbot of St. Meinrad's Benedictine Abbey, Indiana, nominated Bishop of Tiberias and vicar Apostolic of the new district. Bishop Marty was consecrated in the Church of St. Ferdinand, Ferdinand, Indiana, 1 February, 1880, by the Right Reverend Francis Silas Chatard, the present Bishop of Indianapolis. The vicariate was an immense district to govern (149,112 square miles) with scarcely any mode of travelling, except by the primitive ox or mule teams. A few miles of railroad existed from Sioux City to Yankton. The new vicar Apostolic went directly to Yankton, where he took up his residence. He found 12 priests administering to a scattered Catholic population of less than 14,000 souls and 20 churches. Many and heroic were the hardships endured by both bishop and priests. At the close of 1881 the number of priests increased to 37, the number of churches to 43 with 35 stations. There were 3 convents, 2 academies for young ladies, 4 parochial schools for the white and 4 schools for the Indian children, while the Catholic population, including 700 Indians, numbered 15,800 souls. The decade beginning with 1880, witnessed a wonderful development and the population increased from 135,180 to 250,000. The statistics at the end of 1883 show 45 priests, 82 churches, 67 stations, 4 convents, 4 academies, 12 parochial schools, 6 Indian schools and a Catholic population, including 1,600 Indians, of 25,600 souls. The Territory of Dakota was divided by Act of Congress, 22 February, 1889, and the two states, North and South Dakota, were admitted to the Union, 2 November, 1889. The same month witnessed the ecclesiastical division of the vicariate, and two new dioceses were formed, Sioux Falls (South Dakota) with Bishop Marty its first bishop; and Jamestown (North Dakota), now Fargo, with Bishop Shanley (d. July, 1909) its first incumbent. In 1894 Bishop Marty was transferred to the Diocese of St. Cloud, Minnesota, where he died 19 September, 1896. The efforts of Bishop Marty were crowned with marvellous success. He devoted himself especially to the Indian race. He spoke their language and translated hymns and prayers into their tongue. The second and present (1911) Bishop of Sioux Falls, the Right Rev. Thomas O'Gorman, was born at Boston, Massachusetts, 1 May, 1843, he moved with his parents to St. Paul, and was one of the first two students selected for the priesthood by Bishop Cretin, the other was Archbishop Ireland. Having pursued his ecclesiastical studies in France, he returned to St. Paul, where he was ordained priest, 5 November, 1865. He was pastor in turn of Rochester and Faribault, Minn., and first president and professor of dogmatic theology at St. Thomas' College, St. Paul. In 1890 he was appointed Professor of Church History in the Catholic University, Washington, D. C., was consecrated in St. Patrick's Church, Washington, D. C. (19 April, 1896) by Cardinal Satolli, then Apostolic delegate to this country, and on 1 May, 1896, was installed in the pro-cathedral of his episcopal see. The statistics of the diocese then showed 51 secular and 14 regular priests, 50 churches with resident priests, 61 missions with churches, 100 stations, 10 chapels, 14 parochial schools, 61 Indian schools, 2 orphanages, and l hospital. There were 3 communities of men and 6 of women, while the Catholic population, white and Indian, was estimated at 30,000 souls. Bishop O'Gorman infused new life into the diocese. The population increased so rapidly that in 1902 the Diocese of Lead was erected. The statistics of the diocese (1911) are in priests, secular 102, regular 13; students 10; churches with resident priests, 91; missions with churches, 70; stations, 23; chapels, 13; parochial schools, 23 with 2,500 children in attendance; hospitals, 4. There are 3 communities of men: Benedictines, Eudists, and the Clerics of St. Viateur. The communities of women are: Dominican Sisters; Presentation Sisters; Benedictine Sisters; Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis; School Sisters of St. Francis, and the Sisters of Charity of St. Louis. Columbus College at Chamberlain, in charge of the Clerics of St. Viateur is an institution of great promise. The Catholic population, including 500 Indians, is 50,000. In the vicariate Apostolic of thirty-one years ago, where there were only 1 bishop and 12 priests, there are now (1911) 4 bishops and 284 priests. DANIEL F. DESMOND Sioux Indians Sioux Indians The largest and most important Indian tribe north of Mexico, with the single exception of the Ojibwa (Chippewa), who, however, lack the solidarity of the Sioux, being widely scattered on both sides of the international boundary, while the Sioux are virtually all within the United States and up to a comparatively recent period kept up close connection among the various bands. NAME AND AFFILIATION The name Sioux (pronounced Su) is an abbreviation of the French spelling of the name by which they were anciently known to their eastern Algonquian neighbours and enemies, viz. Nadouessioux, signifying "little snakes", i.e. little, or secondary enemies, as distinguished from the eastern Nadowe, or enemies, the Iroquois. This ancient name is now obsolete, having been superseded by the modern Ojibwa term Buanag, of uncertain etymology. They call themselves Dakota, Nakota, or Lakota, according to dialect, meaning "allies". From the forms Dakota, Lakota, and Sioux are derived numerous place-names within their ancient area, including those of two great states. Linguistically the Sioux are of the great Siouan stock, to which they have given name and of which they themselves now constitute nearly three-fourths. Other cognate tribes are the Assiniboin, Crow, Hidatsa, or Minitarí, Mandan, Winnebago, Iowa, Omaha, Ponca, Oto, Missouri, Kaw, Osage, and Quapaw, all excepting the Winnebago living west of the Mississippi; together with a number of tribes formerly occupying territories in Mississippi and the central regions of the Carolinas and Virginia, all now virtually extinct, excepting a handful of Catawba in South Carolina. Linguistic and traditionary evidence indicate this eastern region as the original home of the stock, although the period and causes of the westward migration remain a matter of conjecture. The Sioux language is spoken in three principal dialects, viz. Santee (pronounced Sahntee), or eastern; Yankton, or middle; and Teton, or western, differing chiefly in the interchange of d, n, and l, as indicated in the various forms of the tribal name. The Assiniboin are a seceded branch of the Yankton division, having separated from the parent tribe at some time earlier than 1640. HISTORY When and why the Sioux removed from their original home in the East, or by what route they reached the upper Mississippi country, are unknown. When first noticed in history, about 1650, they centered about Mille Lac and Leech Lake, toward the heads of the Mississippi, in central Minnesota, having their eastern frontier within a day's march of Lake Superior. From this position they were gradually driven by the pressure, from the east, of the advancing Ojibwa, who were earlier in obtaining firearms, until nearly the whole nation had removed to the Minnesota and upper Red River, in turn driving before them the Cheyenne, Omaha, and other tribes. On reaching the buffalo plains and procuring horses, supplemented soon thereafter by firearms, they rapidly overran the country to the west and southwest, crossing the Missouri perhaps about 1750, and continuing on to the Black Hills and the Platte until checked by the Pawnee, Crow, and other tribes. At the beginning of treaty relations in 1805 they were the acknowledged owners of most of the territory extending from central Wisconsin, across the Mississippi and Missouri, to beyond the Black Hills, and from the Canada boundary to the North Platte, including all of Southern Minnesota, with considerable portions of Wisconsin and Iowa, most of North Dakota and South Dakota, Northern Nebraska, and much of Montana and Wyoming. The boundaries of all that portion lying east of the Dakotas were defined by the great inter-tribal treaty of Prairie du Chien in 1825 and a supplemental treaty at the same place in 1830. At this period the Minnesota region was held by the various Santee bands; Eastern Dakota and a small part of Iowa were claimed by the Yankton and their cousins the Yanktonai; while all the Sioux territory west of the Missouri was held by bands of the great Teton division, constituting three-fifths of the whole nation. Under the name of Naduesiu the Sioux are first mentioned by Father Paul le Jeune in the Jesuit Relation of 1640, apparently on the information of that pioneer western explorer, Jean Nicolet, the first white man known to have set foot in Wisconsin, probably in 1634-5. In 1655-6 two other famous French explorers, Radisson and Groseilliers, spent some time with them in their own country, about the western border of Wisconsin. At that time the Sioux were giving shelter to a band of refugee Hurons fleeing before the Iroquois. They were rated as possessing thirty villages, and were the terror of all the surrounding tribes by reason of their number and prowess, although admittedly less cruel. Fathers Allouez and Marquette, from their mission of St. Esprit, established at Lapointe (now Bayfield, Wis.) on Lake Superior in 1665, entered into friendly relations with the Sioux, which continued until 1671, when the latter, provoked by insults from the eastern tribes, returned Marquette's presents, declared war against their hereditary foes, and compelled the abandonment of the mission. In 1674 they sent a delegation to Sault Ste. Marie to arrange peace through the good offices of the resident Jesuit missionary, Father Gabriel Druillettes, who already had several of the tribe under instruction in his house, but the negotiations were brought to an abrupt end by a treacherous attack made upon the Sioux while seated in council in the mission church, resulting in the massacre of the ambassadors after a desperate encounter, and the burning of the church, which was fired over their heads by the Ojibwa to dislodge them. The tribal war went on, but the Sioux kept friendship with the French traders, who by this time had reached the Mississippi. In 1680 one of their war parties, descending the Mississippi against the Illinois, captured the Recollect Father Louis Hennepin with two companions and brought them to their villages at the head of the river, where they held them, more as guests than prisoners, until released on the arrival of the trader, Du Luth, in the fall. While thus in custody Father Hennepin observed their customs, made some study of the language, baptized a child and attempted some religious instruction, explored a part of Minnesota, and discovered and named St. Anthony's Falls. In 1683 Nicholas Perrot established a post at the mouth of the Wisconsin. In 1689 he established Fort Perrot near the lower end of Lake Pepin, on the Minnesota side, the first post within the Sioux territory, and took formal possession of their country for France. The Jesuit Father Joseph Marest, officially designated "Missionary to the Nadouesioux", was one of the witnesses at the ceremony and was again with the tribe some twelve years later. Another post was built by Pierre LeSueur, near the present Red Wing about 1693, and in 1695 a principal chief of the tribe accompanied him to Montreal to meet the governor, Frontenac. By this time the Sioux had a number of guns and were beginning to wage aggressive warfare toward the west, driving the Cheyenne, Omaha, and Oto down upon the Missouri and pushing out into the buffalo plains. During Frontenac's administration mission work languished owing to his bitter hostility to missionaries, especially the Jesuits. About the year 1698, through injudiciously assisting the Sioux against the Foxes, the French became involved in a tedious forty-years' war with the latter tribe which completely paralyzed trade on the upper Mississippi and ultimately ruined the Foxes. Before its end the Sioux themselves turned against the French and gave refuge to the defeated Foxes. In 1700 LeSueur had built Fort L'Huillier on the Blue Earth River near the present Mankato, Minnesota. In 1727, an ineffective peace having been made, the Jesuit Fathers, Ignatius Guignas and Nicolas de Gonnor, again took up work among the Sioux at the new Fort Beauharnais on Lake Pepin. Although driven out for a time by the Foxes, they returned and continued with the work some ten years, until the Sioux themselves became hostile. In 1736 the Sioux massacred an entire exploring party of twenty-one persons under command of the younger Verendrye at the Lake of the Woods, just beyond the northern (international) Minnesota boundary. Among those killed was the Jesuit father, Jean-Pierre Aulneau. In 1745-6, the Foxes having been finally crushed, De Lusignan again arranged peace with the Sioux, and between them and the Ojibwa, and four Sioux chiefs returned with him to Montreal. On the fall of Canada the Sioux, in 1763, sent delegates to the English post at Green Bay with proffers of friendship and a request for traders. They were described as "certainly the greatest nation of Indians ever yet found", holding all other Indians as "their slaves or dogs". Two thousand of their warriors now had guns, while the other and larger portion still depended upon the bow, in the use of which, and in dancing, they excelled the other tribes. In the winter of 1766-7 the American traveller, Jonathan Carver, spent several months with the Santee visiting their burial-ground and sacred cave near the present St. Paul, and witnessing men and women gashing themselves in frenzied grief at their bereavement. Soon after this period the eastern Sioux definitively abandoned the Mille Lac and Leech Lake country to their enemies the Ojibwa, with whom the hereditary war still kept up. The final engagement in this upper region occurred in 1768 when a great canoe fleet of Sioux, numbering perhaps five hundred warriors, while descending the Mississippi from a successful raid upon the Ojibwa, was ambushed near the junction of Crow Wing River and entirely defeated by a much smaller force of the latter tribe. In 1775 peace was again made between the two tribes through the efforts of the English officials in order to secure their alliance in the coming Revolutionary struggle. The peace lasted until the close of the Revolutionary War, in which both tribes furnished contingents against the American frontier, after which the warriors returned to their homes, and the old feud was resumed. In the meantime the Teton Sioux, pressing westward, were gradually pushing the Arikara (Ree) up the Missouri, and by acquiring horses from the plains tribes had become metamorphosed from canoe men and gatherers of wild rice into an equestrian race of nomad buffalo hunters. Some years after the close of the Revolution, perhaps about 1796, French traders in the American interest ascended the Missouri from St. Louis and established posts among the Yankton and Teton. In 1804 the first American exploring expedition, under Captains Lewis and Clark, ascended the river, holding councils and securing the allegiance of the Sioux and other tribes, and then crossing the mountains and descending the Columbia to the Pacific, returning over nearly the same route in 1806. As a result of this acquaintance the first Sioux (Yankton) delegation visited Washington in the latter year. At the same time, 1805-6, Lieutenant Zebulon Pike ascended the Mississippi on a similar errand to the Santee Sioux and other tribes of that region. In this he was successful and on 23 September, 1805, negotiated the first treaty of the Sioux with the United States, by which they ceded lands in the vicinity of the present St. Paul for the establishment of military posts, at the same time giving up their English flags and medals and accepting American ones. Up to this period and for some years later the rapidly diverging bands of the east and west still held an annual renunion east of the lower James River in eastern South Dakota. In 1807 Manuel Lisa, founder of the American Fur Company, "the most active and indefatigable trader that St. Louis ever produced" (Chittenden), established headquarters among the Sioux, at Cedar Island, below the present Pierre, S.D., later moving down to about the present Chamberlain. Lisa was a Spaniard, and like his French associates, Chouteau, Ménard, and Trudeau, was a Catholic. At his several trading posts among the Teton and Yankton Sioux, and the Omaha lower down the river, he showed the Indians how to plant gardens and care for cattle and hogs, besides setting up blacksmith shops for their benefit, without charge, and caring for their aged and helpless, so that it was said that he was better loved by the Sioux than any other white man of his time. Being intensely American in feeling, he was appointed first government agent for the upper Missouri River tribes, and by his great influence with them held them steady for the United States throughout the War of 1812, notwithstanding that most of the eastern, or Santee, Sioux, through the efforts of Tecumtha and a resident British trader, Robert Dickson, declared for England and furnished a contingent against Fort Meigs. Lisa died in 1820. At the close of the war, by a series of five similar treaties made 15 July, 1815, at Portage des Sioux, above St. Louis, the various Sioux bands made their peace with the United States and finally acknowledged its sovereignty. Other late hostile tribes made peace at the same time. this great treaty gathering, the most important ever held with the tribes of the Middle West, marks the beginning of their modern history. In 1820 Fort Snelling was built at the present Minneapolis to control the Santee Sioux and Ojibwa, an agency being also established at the same time. In 1825 another great treaty gathering was convened at Prairie du Chien for the delimitation of tribal boundaries to put an end to inter-tribal wars, and clear the way for future land cessions. At this period, and for years after, the Sioux led all other tribes in the volume of their fur trade, consisting chiefly of buffalo robes and beaver skins. With the establishment of permanent government relations regular mission work began. In 1834 the brothers Samuel and Gideon Pond for the Congregationalists, located among the Santee at Lake Calhoun, near the present St. Paul, Minnesota. In 1835 the same denomination established other missions at Lake Harriet and Lac-qui-Parle, Minnesota, under Rev. J.D. Stevens and Thomas Williamson respectively. In 1837 Williamson was joined by Rev. Stephen Riggs and his son Alfred. In 1852 the two last-named missions were removed to the upper Minnesota in consequence of a treaty cession. All of these workers are known for their linguistic contributions as well as for their missionary service. In 1837 a Lutheran mission was established at Red Wing and continued for some years. The successful establishment of these missions was due chiefly to the encouragement and active aid afforded by Joseph Renville, a remarkable half-breed, who stood high in the respect and affection of the eastern Sioux. Born in the wilderness in 1779 of an Indian mother, he had been taken to Canada, when a small boy, by his French father, a noted trader, and placed under the care of a Catholic priest, from whom he acquired some knowledge of French and of the Christian religion. The death of his father a few years later and his consequent return to the Sioux country put an end to his educational opportunity, but the early impression thus made was never effaced. On coming to manhood and succeeding to his father's business he sent across the ocean, probably through Dickson, the British trader, for a French Bible (which, when it came, was Protestant) and then hired a clerk who could read it to him. On the establishment of the post at Prairie du Chien he brought down his Indian wife and had her regularly married to him by a Catholic priest, he himself having previously instructed her in religion as well as he could. When the Congregationalists arrived he welcomed them as bringing Christianity, even though not of the form of his childhood teacher. He died in 1846. In 1841 Father Augustine Ravoux began work among the Santee in the neighbourhood of Fort Snelling, near which Father Galtier had just built a log chapel of St. Paul, around which grew the modern city. Applying himself to the study of the language, in which he soon became proficient, Father Ravoux in 1843 repaired to Prairie du Chien, and there with his own hands printed a small devotional work, "Katolik Wocekiye Wowapi Kin", which is still used as a mission manual. He continued with the tribe for several years, extending his ministrations also to the Yankton, until recalled to parish work. As early at least as 1840 the great Jesuit apostle of the North-West, Father P.J. De Smet, had visited the bands along the Missouri River, where Father Christian Hoecken had preceded him in 1837, instructing adults and baptizing children. Father De Smet made several other brief stops later on his way to and from the Rocky Mountain missions, and in the summer of 1848 spent several months in the camps of the Bruleé and Ogalala, whom he found well disposed to Christianity. In 1850 Father Hoecken was again with the Yankton and Teton, but the design to establish a permanent mission was frustrated by his untimely death from cholera, 19 June, 1851. In the same summer Father De Smet attended the great inter-tribal gathering at Fort Laramie, where for several weeks he preached daily to the Sioux and other tribes, baptizing over fifteen hundred children. From that period until his death in 1872 a large portion of his time was given to the western Sioux, among whom his influence was so great that he was several times called in by the Government to assist in treaty negotiations, notably in the great peace treaty of 1868. In 1837 the Sioux sold all of their remaining territory east of the Mississippi. In the winter of 1837-8 smallpox, introduced from a passing steamer, swept over all the tribes of the upper Missouri River, killing perhaps 30,000 Indians, of whom a large proportion were Sioux. About the same time the war with the Ojibwa on the eastern frontier broke out again with greater fury than ever. In a battle near the present Stillwater, Minnesota, in June, 1839, some 50 Ojibwa were slain and shortly afterward a Sioux raiding party surprised an Ojibwa camp in the absence of the warriors and brought away 91 scalps. In 1851 the various Santee bands sold all their remaining lands in Minnesota and Iowa, excepting a twenty-mile strip along the upper Minnesota River, Although there were then four missions among the Santee, the majority of the Indians were reported to have "an inveterate hatred" of Christianity. In March, 1857, on some trifling provocation, a small band of renegade Santee, under an outlawed chief, Inkpaduta, "Scarlet Point," attacked the scattered settlements about Spirit Lake, on the Iowa-Minnesota border, burning houses, massacring about fifty persons, and carrying off several women, two of whom were killed later, the others being rescued by the Christian Indians. Inkpaduta escaped to take an active part in all the Sioux troubles for twenty years thereafter. In 1858 the Yankton Sioux sold all their lands in South Dakota, excepting the present Yankton reservation. The famous pipestone quarry in southwestern Minnesota, whence the Sioux for ages had procured the red stone from which their pipes were carved, was also permanently reserved to this Indian purpose. In 1860 the first Episcopalian work was begun among the (Santee) Sioux by Rev. Samuel D. Hinman. In 1862 occurred the great "Minnesota outbreak" and massacre, involving nearly all the Santee bands, brought about by dissatisfaction at the confiscation of a large proportion of the treaty funds to satisfy traders' claims, and aggravated by a long delay in the annuity issue. The weakening of the local garrisons and the general unrest consequent upon the Civil War also encouraged to revolt. The trouble began 2 August with an attack upon the agency store-house at Redwood, where five thousand Indians were awaiting the distribution of the delayed annuity supplies. The troops were overpowered and the commissary goods seized, but no other damage attempted. On 17 August a small party of hunters, being refused food at a settler's cabin, massacred the family and fled with the news to the camp of Little Crow, where a general massacre of all the whites and Christian Indians was at once resolved upon. Within a week almost every farm cabin and small settlement in Southern Minnesota and along the adjoining border was wiped out of existence and most of the inhabitants massacred, in many cases with devilish barbarities, excepting such as could escape to Fort Ridgely at the lower end of the reservation. The missionaries were saved by the faithful heroism of the Christian Indians, who, as in 1857, stood loyally by the Government. Determined attacks were made under Little Crow upon Fort Ridgely (20-21 August) and New Ulm (22 August), the latter defended by a strong volunteer force under Judge Charles Flandrau. Both attacks were finally repulsed. On 2 Sept. a force of 1500 regulars and volunteers under Colonel (afterwards General) H. H. Sibley defeated the hostiles at Birch Coulee and again on 23 September at Wood Lake. Most of the hostiles now surrendered, the rest fleeing in small bands beyond the reach of pursuit. Three hundred prisoners were condemned to death by court martial, but the number was cut down by President Lincoln to thirty-eight, who were hanged at Mankato, 26 December, 1862. They were attended by Revs. Riggs and Williamson and by Father Ravoux, but although the other missionaries had been twenty-five years stationed with the tribe and spoke the language fluently, thirty-tree of the whole number elected to die in the Catholic Church, two of the remaining five rejecting all Christian ministration. Three years later Father Ravoux again stood on the scaffold with two condemned warriors of the tribe. Two months after the outbreak Congress declared the Santee treaties abrogated and the Minnesota reservations forfeited. One part of the fugitives trying to escape to the Yanktonai was overtaken and defeated with great loss by Sibley near Big Mound, North Dakota, 24 July, 1863. The survivors fled to the Teton beyond the Missouri or took refuge in Canada, where they are still domiciled. On 3 Sept. General Sully struck the main hostile camp under Inkpaduta at Whitestone Hill, west of Ellendale, N.D., killing 300 and capturing nearly as many more. On 28 July, 1864, General Sully delivered the final blow to the combined hostile force, consisting of Santee, Yanktonai, and some northern Teton, at Kildeer Mountain on the Little Missouri. The prisoners and others of the late hostile bands were finally settled on two reservations established for the purpose, viz. the (Lower) Yanktonai at Crow Creek, S.D., and the Santee at Santee, northeastern Nebraska. Here they still remain, being now well advanced in civilization and Christianity, and fairly properous. The outbreak had cost the lives of nearly 1000 whites, of whom nearly 700 perished in the first few days of the massacre. The Indian loss was about double, falling almost entirely upon the Santee. Pananapapi (Strike-the-Ree), head chief of the 3000 Yankton, and a Catholic, had steadily held his people loyal and the great Brulé and Ogalala bands of the Teton, 13,000 strong, had remained neutral. In October, 1865, at old Fort Sully (near Pierre), S.D., a general treaty of peace was made with the Sioux, and one Teton band, the Lower Brulé, agreed to come upon a reservation. The majority of the great Teton division, however, comprising the whole strength of the nation west of the Missouri, refused to take part. In the meantime serious trouble had been brewing in the West. With the discovery of gold in California in 1849 and the consequent opening of an emigrant trail along the North Platte and across the Rocky Mountains, the Indians became alarmed at the disturbance to their buffalo herds, upon which they depended for their entire subsistence. The principal complainants were the Brulé and Ogalala Sioux. For the protection of the emigrants in 1849 the Government bought and garrisoned the American Fur Company post of Fort Laramie on the upper North Platte, in Wyoming, later making it also an agency headquarters. In September, 1851, a great gathering of nearly all the tribes and bands of the Northern Plains was held at Fort Laramie, and a treaty was negotiated by which they came to an agreement in regard to their rival territorial claims, pledged peace among themselves and with the whites, and promised not to disturb the trail on consideration of a certain annual payment. Father De Smet attended throughout the council, teaching and baptizing, and gives an interesting account of the gathering, the largest ever held with the Plains Indians. The treaty was not ratified and had no permanent effect. On 17 August, 1854, while the Indians were camped about the post awaiting the distribution of the annuity goods, occurred the "Fort Laramie Massacre", by which Lieutenant Grattan and an entire detachment of 29 soldiers lost their lives while trying to arrest some Brulés who had killed and eaten an emigrant's cow. From all the evidence the conflict was provoked by the officer's own indiscretion. The Indians then took forcible possession of the annuity goods and left without making any attempt upon the fort or garrison. The Brulé Sioux were now declared hostile, and Gen. W.S. Harney was sent against them. On 3 September, with 1200 men, he came upon their camp at Ash Hollow, Western Nebraska, and while pretending to parley on their proffer of surrender, suddenly attacked them, killing 136 Indians and destroying the entire camp outfit. Late in 1863 the Ogalala and Brulé under their chiefs, Red Cloud (Makhpiya-luta) and Spotted Tail (Shinté-galeshka) respectively, became actively hostile, inflamed by reports of the Santee outbreak and the Civil War in the South. They were joined by the Cheyenne and for two years all travel across the plains was virtually suspended. In March, 1865, they were roused to desperation by the proclamation of two new roads to be opened through their best hunting rounds to reach the new gold fields of Montana. Under Red Cloud's leadership they notified the Government that they would allow no new roads or garrison posts to be established in their country, and carried on the war on this basis with such determination that by treaty at Fort Laramie through a peace commission in April-May, 1868, the Government actually agreed to close the "Montana road" that had been opened north from Laramie, and to abandon the three posts that had been established to protect it. Red Cloud himself refused to sign until after the troops had been withdrawn. The treaty left the territory south of the North Platte open to road building, recognized all north of the North Platte and east of the Bighorn Mountains as unceded Indian territory, and established the "Great Sioux Reservation", nearly equivalent to all of South Dakota west of the Missouri. Provision was made for an agency on the Missouri River and the inauguration of regular governmental civilizing work. In consideration of thus giving up their old freedom the Indians were promised, besides the free aid of blacksmiths, doctors, a saw mill, etc., a complete suit of clothing yearly for thirty years to every individual of the bands concerned, based on the actual yearly census. Among the official witnesses were Rev. Hinman, The Episcopalian missionary, and Father De Smet. This treaty brought the whole of the Sioux nation under agency restriction, and with its ratification in February, 1869, the five years' war came to a close. In this war Red Cloud had been the principal leader, Spotted Tail having been won to friendship earlier through the kindness extended by the officers at Fort Laramie on the occasion of the death of his daughter, who was buried there with Christian rites at her own request. The Cheyenne and Northern Arapaho also acted with the Sioux. The chief fighting centered around Fort Kearney, Wyoming, which Red Cloud himself held under repeated siege, and near which on 21 December, 1866, occurred the "Fetterman Massacre", when an entire detachment of 80 men under Captain Fetterman was exterminated by an overwhelming force of Indians. By treaties in 1867 reservations had been established at Lake Traverse, S.D. and at Fort Totten, N.D., for the Sisseton and Wahpeton Santee and the Cuthead Yanktonai, most of whom had been concerned in the Minnesota outbreak. In 1870 a part of the Christian Santee separated from their kinsmen in Nebraska and removed to Flandreau, S.D., and became citizens. In 1871, despite the protest of Red Cloud and other leading chiefs, the Northern Pacific railway was constructed along the south bank of the Yellowstone and several new posts built for its protection, and war was on again with the Teton Sioux, Cheyenne, and part of the Arapaho. Several skirmishes occurred, and in 1873 General G.A. Custer was ordered to Dakota. In the next year, while hostilities were still in progress, Custer made an exploration of the Black Hills, South Dakota, and reported gold. Despite the treaty and the military, there was at once a great rush of miners and others into the Hills. The Indians refusing to sell on any terms offered, the military patrol was withdrawn, and mining towns at once sprang up all through the mountains. Indian hunting by agents' permission in the disputed territory were ordered to report at their agencies by 31 January, 1876, or be considered hostile, but even the runners who carried the message were unable to return, by reason of the severity of the winter, until after war had been actually declared. This is commonly known as the "Custer War" from its central event, 25 June, 1876, the massacre of General Custer and every man of a detachment of the Seventh Cavalry, numbering 204 in all, in an attack upon the main camp of the hostile Sioux and Cheyenne, on the Little Bighorn River in southeastern Montana. On that day and the next, in the same vicinity, other detachments under Reno and Benteen sustained desperate conflicts with the Indians, with the loss of some sixty more killed. The Indians, probably numbering at least 2500 warriors with their families, finally withdrew on the approach of Generals Terry and Gibbons from the north. The principal Sioux commanders were Crazy Horse and Gall, although Sitting Bull was also present. Red Cloud and Spotted Tail had remained at their agencies. Several minor engagements later in the year resulted in the surrender and return of most of the hostiles to the reservation, while Sitting Bull and Gall and their immediate following escaped into Canada (June, 1877). by a series of treaties negotiated 23 September-27 October, 1876, the Sioux surrendered the whole of the Black Hills country and the western outlet. On 7 September, 1877, Crazy Horse, who had come in with his band some months before, was killed in a conflict with the guard at Fort Robinson, Nebraska. In the same month the last hostiles surrendered. Soon after the treaty a large delegation visited Washington, following which event the Red Cloud (Ogalala) and Spotted Tail (Brulé) agencies were permanently established in 1878 at Pine Ridge and Rosebud, S.D., respectively. This date may be considered to mark the beginning of civilization in these two powerful bands. In 1881 all the late hostiles in Canada came in and surrendered. Sitting Bull and his immediate followers, after being held in confinement for two years, were allowed to return to their homes on Standing Rock reservation. On 5 August, 1881, Spotted Tail was killed by a rival chief. On 29 July, 1888, Strike-the-Ree, the famous Catholic chief of the Yankton, died at the age of 84. In the allotment of Indian agencies to the management of the various religious denominations, in accord with President Grant's "peace policy" in 1870, only two of the eleven Sioux agencies were assigned to the Catholics, namely, Standing Rock and Devil's Lake, notwithstanding that, with the exception of a portion of the Santee and a few of the Yankton, the only missionaries the tribe had ever known from Allouez to De Smet had been Catholic, and most of the resident whites and mixed-bloods were of Catholic ancestry. Santee, Flandreau, and Sisseton (Lake Traverse) agencies of the Santee division were assigned to the Presbyterians, who had already been continuously at work among them for more than a generation. Yankton reservation had been occupied jointly by Presbyterians and Episcopalians in 1869, as was Cheyenne River reservation in 1873. Pine Ridge, Rosebud, Lower Brulé and Crow Creek reservations, comprising nearly one-half the tribe, were given to the Episcopalians, who erected buildings between 1872 (Crow Creek) and 1877 (Pine Ridge). At Devil's Lake an industrial boarding school was completed and opened in 1874 in charge of Benedictine Fathers and Grey Nun Sisters of Charity. At Standing Rock a similar school was opened in 1877 in charge of Benedictine priests and Sisters. Thus by 1878 regular mission plants were in operation on every Sioux reservation. Other Catholic foundations were begun at Crow Creek and Rosebud in 1886, at Pine Ridge in 1887, and at Cheyenne River in 1892. In 1887 the noted secular missionary priest, Father Francis M.J. Craft, opened school at Standing Rock and later succeeded in organizing in the tribe an Indian sisterhood which, however, was refused full ecclesiastical recognition. In 1891 he removed with his community to the Fort Berthold reservation, N.D., where for some years the Sioux Indian Sisters proved valuable auxiliaries, particularly in instructing the women and nursing the sick of the confederated Grosventres, Arikara, and Mandan. Later on several of them won commendation as volunteer nurses in Cuba during the Spanish War. This zealous sisterhood is no longer in existence. In 1889, after long and persistent opposition by the older chiefs, the "Great Sioux Reservation" was cut in two and reduced by about one half by a treaty cession which included almost all territory between White and Cheyenne Rivers, S.D., and all north of Cheyenne river west of 102°. The ceded lands were thrown open to settlement by proclamation in the next spring, and were at once occupied by the whites. In the meantime payment for the lands was delayed, the annuity goods failed to arrive until the winter was nearly over, the crops had failed through attendance of the Indians at the treaty councils in the preceding spring, epidemic diseases were raging in the camps, and as the final straw Congress, despite previous promise, cut down the beef ration by over four million pounds on the ground of the stipulated money payment, which, however, had not arrived. A year before rumours had come to the Sioux of a new Indian Messiah arisen beyond the mountains to restore the old-time Indian life, together with their departed friends, in a new earth from which the whites should be excluded. Several tribes, including the Sioux, sent delegates to the home of the Messiah, in Western Nevada, to investigate the rumour. The first delegation, as well as a second, confirmed the truth of the report, and in the spring of 1890 the ceremonial "Ghost Dance", intended to hasten the fulfillment of the prophecy, was inaugurated at Pine Ridge. Because of its strong appeal to the Indians under the existing conditions, the Dance soon spread among other Teton reservations until the Indians were in a frenzy of religious excitement. The newly-appointed agent at Pine Ridge became frightened and called for troops, thus precipitating the outbreak of 1890. By 1 December 3000 troops were disposed in the neighbourhood of the western Sioux reservations then under orders of General Nelson Miles. Leading events of the outbreak were: + the killing of Sitting Bull, his son, and six others on 15 December, at his camp on Grand River, Standing Rock reservation, while resisting arrest by the Indian police, six of whom were killed in the encounter; + the flight of Sitting Bull's followers and others of Standing Rock and Cheyenne River reservations into the Bad Lands of western South Dakota where they joined other refugee "hostiles" from Pine Ridge and Rosebud; + the fight at Wounded Knee Creek, twenty miles northeast of Pine Ridge agency, 29 December, 1890, between a band of surrendered hostiles under Big Foot and a detachment of the Seventh Cavalry under Colonel Forsyth. On 16 January, 1891, the hostiles surrendered to General Miles at Pine Ridge, and the outbreak was at an end. With the restoration of peace, grievances were adjusted and the work of civilization resumed. Under provision of the general allotment law of 1887 negotiations were concluded from time to time with the various bands by which the size of the reservations was still further curtailed, and lands allotted in severalty, until now almost all of the Sioux Indians are individual owners and well on the way to full citizenship. Indian dress and adornment are nearly obsolete, together with the tipi and aboriginal ceremonial, and the great majority are clothed in citizen's dress, living in comfortable small houses with modern furniture, and engaged in farming and stock raising. The death of the old chief, Red Cloud, at Pine Ridge in 1909, removed almost the last link binding the Sioux to their Indian past. RELIGIOUS STATUS In 1909 nearly 10,000 of the 25,000 Sioux within the United States were officially reported as Christians. The proportion is now probably at least one-half, of whom about half are Catholic, the others being chiefly Episcopalian and Presbyterian. The Catholic missions are: + Our Lady of Sorrows, Fort Totten, N.D. (Devil's Lake Res.), Benedictine; + St. Elizabeth, Cannonball, N.D. (Standing Rock Res.), Benedictine; + St. Peter, Fort Yates, N.D. (Standing Rock Res.), Benedictine; + St. James, Porcupine (Shields P. O.), N.D. (Standing Rock Res.), Benedictine; + St. Benedict, Standing Rock Agency, S.D. (Standing Rock Res.), Benedictine; + St. Aloysius, Standing Rock Agency, S.D., (Standing Rock Res.), Benedictine; + St. Edward, Standing Rock Agency, S.D., (Standing Rock Res.), Benedictine; + St. Bede, Standing Rock Agency, S.D. (Standing Rock Res.), Benedictine; + Immaculate Conception, Stephan, S.D. (Crow Creek Res.), Benedictine; + St. Matthew, Veblen Co. (Britton P.O.) S.D. (former Sisseton Res.), secular; + Corpus Christi, Cheyenne River Agency, S.D. (Chey. R. Res.), secular; + St. Francis, Rosebud, S.D. (Rosebud Res.), Jesuit; + Holy Rosary, Pine Ridge, S.D. (Pine Ridge Res.), Jesuit. The two Jesuit missions maintain boarding-schools, and are assisted by Franciscan Sisters. The Immaculate Conception mission also maintains a boarding-school, with Benedictine Sisters. At the Fort Totten mission a monthly paper, "Sina Sapa Wocekiye Taeyanpaha" (Black-gown Prayer Herald), entirely in the Sioux language, is published under the editorship of Father Jerome Hunt, who has been with the mission from its foundation. Notable events in the religious life of the tribe are the Catholic Sioux congresses held in the summer of each year, one in North and one in South Dakota, which are attended by many high church dignitaries and mission workers and several thousands of Catholic Indians. Of some 470 Christian Sioux in Canada about one-fourth are Catholic, chiefly at Standing Buffalo Reservation, Sask., where they are served from the Oblate mission school at Qu'Appelle. ORGANIZATION AND CULTURE The Sioux were not a compact nation with centralized government and supreme head chief, but were a confederacy of seven allied sub-tribes speaking a common language, each with a recognized head chief and each subdivided into bands or villages governed by subordinate chiefs. The seven sub-tribes, from east to west, were: (1) Mdewakantonwan (Mde-wakanton) Village (people) of the Spirit Lake (i.e. Mille Lac); (2) Wakhpekute "Leaf Shooters"; (3) Wakhpetonwan (Wahpeton), "Village in the Leaves"; (4) Sisitonwan (Sisseton), "Village of the Marsh"; (5) Ihanktonwan (Yankton), "Village at the End"; (6) Ihanktonwanna (Yanktonai), "Little Yankton"; (7) Titonwan (Teton), "Village of the Prairie". Of these, the first four, originally holding the heads of the Mississippi, constitute the Isanti (Santee) or eastern, dialectic group. The Yankton and Yanktonai, about the lower and upper courses of the James River respectively, together with the Assiniboin tribe constitute the central dialectic group. The great Teton division, west of the Missouri and comprising three-fifths of the whole nation, constitutes a third dialectic group. The Teton are divided into seven principal bands, commonly known as Ogalala (at Pine Ridge); Brulé (at Rosebud and Lower Brulé); Hunkpapa (at Standing Rock); Miniconju, Sans-Arc; and Two Kettle (Cheyenne River). Among the more sedentary eastern bands chiefship seems to have been hereditary in the male line, but with the roving western bands it depended usually upon pre-eminent ability. In their original home about the heads of the Mississippi the Sioux subsisted chiefly upon wild rice, fish, and small game, and were expert canoe men, but as they drifted west into the plains and obtained possession of the horse their whole manner of life was changed, and they became a race of equestrian nomads, subsisting almost entirely upon the buffalo. They seem never to have been agricultural to any great extent. Their dwelling was the birch-bark lodge in the east and the buffalo-skin tipi on the plain. Their dead were sometimes deposited in a coffin upon the surface of the ground, but more often laid upon a scaffolding or in the tree-tops. Food and valuables were left with the corpse, and relatives gashed their bodies with knives and cut off their hair in token of grief. Besides the knife, bow, and hatchet of the forest warrior, they carried also on the plains the lance and shield of the horseman. Polygamy was recognized. There was no clan system. To the Sioux the earth was a great island plain surrounded by an ocean far to the west of which was the spirit world. There were two souls -- some said four -- one of which remained near the grave after death, while the other traveled on to the spirit world, or in certain cases became a wandering and dangerous ghost. In the west also, in a magic house upon the top of a high mountain and guarded by four sentinel animals at the four doorways, lived the Wakinyan, or thunders, the greatest of the gods, and mortal enemies of the subterranean earth spirits and the water spirits. the sun also was a great god. There was no supreme "Great Spirit", as supposed by the whites, no ethical code to their supernaturalism, and no heaven or hell in their spirit world. Among animals the buffalo was naturally held in highest veneration. Fairies and strange monsters, both good and bad, were everywhere, usually invisible, but sometimes revealing themselves in warning portent. Dreams were held as direct revelations of the supernatural. Taboos, fasting, and sacrifices, including voluntary torture, were frequent. Among the great ceremonials the annual sun dance was the most important, on which occasion the principal performers danced at short intervals for four days and nights, without food, drink, or sleep, undergoing at the same time painful bodily laceration, either as a propitiation or in fulfillment of a thanksgiving vow. The several warrior orders and various secret societies each had their special dance, and for young girls there was a puberty ceremony. (For cults and home life see works of Dorsey and Eastman quoted in bibliography below.) In physique, intellect, morality, and general manliness the Sioux rated among the finest of the Plains tribes. Under the newer conditions the majority are now fairly industrious and successful farmers and stock-raisers. LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE The Sioux language is euphonious, sonorous, and flexible, and possesses a more abundant native literature than that of any other tribe within the United States, with the possible exception of the Cherokee. By means of an alphabet system devised by the early Presbyterian missionaries, nearly all of the men can read and write their own language. The printed literature includes religious works, school textbooks, grammars, and dictionaries, miscellaneous publications, and three current mission journals, Catholic, as already noted, Presbyterian, and Episcopal, all three entirely in Sioux. The earliest publication was a spelling-book by Rev. J.D. Stevens in 1836. In linguistics the principal is the "Grammar and Dictionary of the Dakota Language", by Rev. S. R. Riggs, published by the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, in 1852, and republished in part, with editing by Dorsey, by the Bureau of Am. Ethnology, Washington, in 1892-4. POPULATION Contrary to the usual rule with Indian tribes, the Sioux have not only held their own since the advent of the whites, but have apparently slightly increased. This increase, however, is due largely to incorporation of captives and intermarriage of whites. We have no reliable estimates for the whole tribe before 1849, when Governor Ramsey gave them "not over 20,000", while admitting that some resident authorities gave them 40,000 or more. Riggs in 1851 gives them about 25,000, but under-estimates the western (Teton) bands. By official census of 1910 they number altogether 28,618 souls, including all mixed-bloods, distributed as follows: Minnesota, scattered, about 929; Nebraska, Santee agency, 1155; North Dakota, Devil's Lake (Fort Totten) agency, 986; Standing Rock agency, 3454; South Dakota, Flandreau agency, 275, Lower Brulé, 469, Crow Creek, 997, Yankton, 1753, Sisseton, 1994, Cheyenne River, 2590, Rosebud, 5096, Pine Ridge, 6758. Canada: Birdtail, Oak Lake, Oak River, Turtle Mountain, Portage La Prairie (Manitoba), 613; Wahspaton, Standing Buffalo, Moosejaw, Moose Woods (Sask.), 455. Those in Canada are chiefly descendants of refugees from the United States in 1862 and 1876. BRYANT AND MURCH, Hist. of the Great Massacre by the Sioux Indians (St. Peter, 1872); BUREAU CATH. IND. MISSIONS, Annual Reports of the Director (Washington); Annual Reports of the Dept. of Ind. Affairs (Ottawa, Canada); CARVER, Travels through in Interior Parts of N. Am. (1766-8); (London, 1778, and later editions); CATLIN, Manners, Customs and Condition of the N. Am. Inds. (London, 1841, and later editions); CHITTENDEN, Am. Fur Trade (New York, 1902); CHITTENDEN AND RICHARDSON, Life, Letters and Travels of Fr. Pierre-Jean De Smet, (New York, 1905); COMMISSIONER OF IND. AFFAIRS, Annual Reports (Washington); Condition of the Indian Tribes, Report of Joint Special Committee (Washington, 1867); DORSEY, Study of Siouan Cults, in 11th Rept. Bur. Am. Eth. (Washington, 1894); EASTMAN, Indian Boyhood (New York, 1902); IDEM, Wigwam Evenings (Boston, 1909); FINERTY, Warpath and Bivouac (Chicago, 1890); HAYDEN, Conts. to the Ethnography and Philology of the Ind. Tribes of the Missouri Valley in Trans. Am. Philos. Soc., n. s., XII (Philadelphia, 1862); HENNEPIN, Déscription de la Louisiane (Paris, 1683), tr. SHEA (New York, 1880); HINMAN AND WELSH, Journal of the Rev. S.D. Hinman (Philadelphia, 1869); Jesuit Relations, ed. Thwaites, 73 vols., especially Ottawa and Illinois, L-LXXI (Cleveland, 1896-1901); Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, ed. KAPPLER, (Washington, 1903 - 4); KEATING, Expedition (Long's) to the Sources of St. Peter's River (Philadelphia, 1824 and later editions); LEWIS AND CLARK, Original Journals of the Expedition of 1804-6, ed. THWAITES, 8 vols. (New York, 1904-5. numerous other editions more or less complete, the first offical report being contained in the Message from the President, Washington, 1806); MCGEE, Siouan Indians in 15th Rept. Bur. Am. Ethnology (Washington, 1897); MCKENNEY AND HALL, Hist. Ind. Tribes of North Am. (Philadelphia, 1854, and other editions); MCLAUGHLIN, My Friend the Indian (Boston, 1910); MALLERY, Pictographs of the N. Am. Indians in 4th Rept. Bur. Am. Ethnology (Washington, 1886); IDEM, Picture Writing of the Am. Inds. in 10th Rept. Bur. Am. Ethnology (Washington, 1893); MARGRY, Découvertes et établissements des Francais (6 vols., Paris, 1879-86); MAXIMILIAN, PRINCE OF WIED, Travels in the Interior of N. Am. (London, 1843; original German ed. 2 vols., Coblenz, 1839-41); MILES, Personal Recollections (Chicago, 1896); Minnesota Hist. Soc. Colls. (1872-1905); MOONEY, Siouan Tribes of the East, bull. 22, Bureau Am. Ethnology (Washington, 1895); IDEM, The Ghost Dance Religion and Sioux Outbreak of 1890 in 14th Rept. Bur. Am. Ethnology, (Washington, 1896); NEILL, Hist. of Minnesota (Philadelphia, 1858); New York, Documents Relating to the Colonial Hist. of (15 vols., Albany, 1853-87); NICOLLET, Report on . . . Upper Mississippi (Senate Doc.) (Washington, 1843); North Dakota Hist. Soc. Colls. (2 vols., Bismarck, 1906-8); PARKMAN, Oregon Trail (New York, 1849, and later editions); PERRIN DU LAC, Voyages dans les deux Louisianes, 1801-3 (Paris and Lyons, 1805); PIKE, Expedition to the Sources of the Mississippi (Philadelphia, 1810); PILLING, Bibl. of the Siouan Languages, Bull. 5, Bur. Am. Ethnology (Washington, 1887); POOLE, Among the Sioux of Dakota (New York, 1881); RAMSEY, Report on Sioux in Rept. Comsner. Ind. Affairs for 1849 II (Washington, 1850); RAVOUX, Reminiscences, memoris and Lectures (St. Paul, 1890); RIGGS, The Dakota Language in Colls. Minn. Hist. Soc., I (St. Paul, 1851, reprint St. Paul, 1872); IDEM, Grammar and Dict. of the Dakota Language: Smithsonian Contributions, IV (Washington, 1852); IDEM, Tahkoo Wahkan, or the Gospel among the Dakotas (Boston, 1869); IDEM, Mary and I: Forty Years with the Sioux (Chicago, 1880); ROBINSON, Hist. of the Sioux Indians in Colls. South Dakota Hist. Soc., II (Aberdeen, S.D., 1904); ROYCE AND THOMAS, Indian Land Cessions in 18th Rept. Bur. Am. Ethnology, II (Washington, 1899); SCHOOLCRAFT, Travels . . . to the Sources of the Mississippi (Albany, 1821); IDEM, Hist. Condition and Prospects of the Indian Tribes of the U. S. (6 vols., Philadelphia, 1851-7); Sheridan (in charge), Record of Engagements with Hostile Indians, etc., 1868-1882 (Washington, 1882); SHEA, Hist. of the Catholic Missions among the Indian Tribes of the U.S. (New York, 1855); IDEM, Disc. and Expl. of the Mississippi Valley (New York, 1852); and Albany, 1903); DE SMET, Oregon Missions (New York, 1847); Fr. edition, Ghent, 1848); IDEM, Western Missions and Missionaries (New York,1863); (see also CHITTENDEN AND RICHARDSON), South Dakota Hist. Soc. Colls. (3 vols., Aberdeen, S.D., 1902-6); WALL, Recollections of the Sioux Massacre (1862) (Lake City, Minn., 1909); WARREN, Explorations in the Dakota Country, 1855, Senate Doc. (Washington, 1856); WARREN, Hist. of the Ojibways in Minn. Hist. Soc. Colls., V (St. Paul, 1885); WHIPPLE, Lights and Shadows of a Long Episcopate (New York, 1899); Wisconsin Hist. Soc. Colls. (16 vols., Madison, 1855-1902). JAMES MOONEY Sipibo Indians Sipibo Indians A numerous tribe of Panoan linguistic stock, formerly centring about the Pisqui and Aguaitia tributaries of the upper Ucayali River, Province of Loreto, north-eastern Peru, and now found as boatmen or labourers along the whole course of that stream. They speak the same language as the Conibo, Pano, and Setebo, whom they resemble in habit and ceremonial. The Sipibo became known about the same time as their cognate tribes early in the seventeenth century, but opposed a determined resistance to the entrance of both gold-hunters and missionaries (1657), for a long time frustrating all Christianizing efforts in the Ucayali region by their constant raids upon the mission settlements, particularly of the Setebo. In 1670, in common with other tribes of that region, they were greatly wasted by smallpox. In 1736 they broke the power of the Setebo in a bloody battle, but in 1764 the Franciscan Father Juan de Frezneda entered their country and so far won their good will that he succeeded in making peace between the two tribes and in the next year (1765) established the first mission among the Sipibo under the title of Santo Domingo de Pisqui. This was shortly followed by the founding of Santa Barbara de Archani and Santa Cruz de Aguaitia in the same tribe, together with a resumption of work among the Conibo, first undertaken in 1685. Among other labourers in the Sipibo field at this period was Father José Amich, author of a history of the Ucayali missions. Suddenly and without warning in the summer of 1766 all the river tribes attacked the missions simultaneously, slaughtered nine of the missionaries together with their neophytes, and completely destroyed all that had been accomplished by years of presevering sacrifice. Rungato, a Setebo chief, who had professed the greatest friendship for the missionaries, appears to have been the leader. The reason of the outbreak was never known. It may have been jealousy of authority, impatience of restraint, covetousness of the mission property, some unrecorded outrage by the Spaniards on the frontier, some dream, or superstitious panic such as are of so frequent occurrence among savages. A small relief expedition sent out in charge of three Franciscans the next year learned the details of the massacre, and was forced to turn back, but was permitted to retire without molestation. This last rising of the wild tribes of the middle Ucayali was in some measure an echo of a similar rising of the wild Campa tribes on the upper branches of the same stream in 1742, led by Juan Santos, an apostate Quichua Indian, who assumed the title of the Inca Atahualpa (see QUICHUA), and resulting in the destruction of all the missions of that region and the slaughter of nearly eighty Franciscan missionaries. Of this rising of the Campa, Herndon says: "It is quite evident that no distaste for the Catholic religion induced this rebellion; for in the year 1750, eight years afterward, the Marquis of Mina-hermosa, marching into this country for the punishment of the rebels, found the church at Quimisi in perfect order, with candles burning before the images. He burned the town and church, and six years after this, when another entrance into this country was made by General Bustamente, he found the town rebuilt and a large cross erected in the middle of the plaza. I have had occasion myself to notice the respect and reverence of these Indians for their pastors, and their delight in participating in the ceremonial and sense-striking worship of the Roman Church." A similar instance is recorded of the revolted Pueblos (q.v.), as also of the unconverted Setebo. Following close upon the massacre of 1766 came the expulsion of the Jesuits by royal decree in the following year, and the Ucayali region was given over to barbarism until 1791, when by direction of the superior of the Franciscan college of Ocopa, Father Narciso Girbal with two companions once more braved the wilderness dangers and made successful foundation at Sarayacu (q.v.) into which mission and its branches most of the wandering river Indians were finally gathered. A description of the Sipibo will answer in most of its details for all the tribes of the Ucayali and Huallaga region, within the former sphere of influence of the Franciscan missionaries, with the addition that certain tribes, particularly the Cashibo, were noted for their cannibalism. There was very little tribal solidarity, each so-called tribe being broken up into petty bands ruled by local chiefs, and seldom acting together even against a common enemy. They subsisted chiefly on fish, game, turtle eggs, bananas, yuccas, and a little corn, agriculture, however, being but feebly developed. The root of the yucca was roasted as bread, ground between stones for flour, boiled or fried, while from the juice, fermented with saliva, was prepared the intoxicating masato or chicha, which was in requisition at all family or tribal festivals. Salt was seldom used, but clay-eating was common and sometimes of fatal consequence. Their houses, scattered simply at intervals along the streams, were of open framework thatched with palm leaves. The arrow poison, usually known as curari, was prepared from the juice of certain lianas or tree vines and was an article of intertribal trade over a great extent of territory. They either went entirely naked or wore a short skirt or sleeveless shirt woven of cotton or bark fibre. Head flattening and the wearing of nose and ear pendants and labrets were common. They blackened their teeth with a vegetable dye. The modern civilized Indians dress in light peon fashion. Although most of the tribes could count no higher than five, their general mentality was high, and they progressed rapidly in civilized arts. Their religion was animism, dominated by the yutumi or priests, but with few great ceremonies. As among all savages, disease and death were commonly ascribed to evil spirits or witchcraft. Polygamy was universal, the women being frequently obtained by raids upon other tribes. Among their barbarous customs were the eating of prisoners of war, and sometimes of deceased parents, the killing of the helpless and of deformed children and twins, and a sort of circumcision of young girls at about the age of twelve years. A part of the Sipibo still roam the forests, but the majority are now civilized and employed as boatmen, rubber-gatherers, or labourers along the river. In common with all the tribes of the region their numbers are steadily decreasing. See also SETEBO INDIANS. Consult particularly: RAIMONDI, El Perú, II and III, Hist. de la Geografía del Perú, bks. i and ii (Lima, 1876-79), Raimondi derives much of his information from a MS. history of the Franciscan missions, by Fernando Rodriguez, 1774, preserved in the convent at Lima; IDEM, Provincia Litoral de Loreto (Lima, 1862), condensed tr. by BOLLÆRT in Anthropological Review (London, May, 1863); BRINTON, American Race (New York, 1891); CASTELNAU, Expédition dans les parties centrales de l' Amérique du Sud. IV (Paris, 1891); EBERHARDT, Indians of Peru in Smithson. Miscel. Colls., quarterly issue, V (Washington, 1909), 2; HERNDON, Exploration of the Amazon (Washington, 1854); ORDINAIRE, Les Sauvages du Pérou in Revue d'Ethnographie, VI (Paris, 1887); SMYTH and LOWE, Journey from Líma to Pará (London, 1836). JAMES MOONEY Pope St. Siricius Pope St. Siricius (384-99). Born about 334; died 26 November, 399, Siricius was a native of Rome; his father's name was Tiburtius. Siricius entered the service of the Church at an early age and, according to the testimony of the inscription on his grave, was lector and then deacon of the Roman Church during the pontificate of Liberius (352-66). After the death of Damasus, Siricius was unanimously elected his successor (December, 384) and consecrated bishop probably on 17 December. Ursinus, who had been a rival to Damasus (366), was alive and still maintained his claims. However, the Emperor Valentinian III, in a letter to Pinian (23 Feb., 385), gave his consent to the election that had been held and praised the piety of the newly-elected bishop; consequently no difficulties arose. Immediately upon his elevation Siricius had occasion to assert his primacy over the universal Church. A letter, in which questions were asked on fifteen different points concerning baptism, penance, church discipline, and the celibacy of the clergy, came to Rome addressed to Pope Damasus by Bishop Himerius of Tarragona, Spain. Siricius answered this letter on 10 February, 385, and gave the decisions as to the matters in question, exercising with full consciousness his supreme power of authority in the Church (Coustant, "Epist. Rom. Pont.", 625 sq.). This letter of Siricius is of special importance because it is the oldest completely preserved papal decretal (edict for the authoritative decision of questions of discipline and canon law). It is, however, certain that before this earlier popes had also issued such decretals, for Siricius himself in his letter mentions "general decrees" of Liberius that the latter had sent to the provinces; but these earlier ones have not been preserved. At the same time the pope directed Himerius to make known his decrees to the neighbouring provinces, so that they should also be observed there. This pope had very much at heart the maintenance of Church discipline and the observance of canons by the clergy and laity. A Roman synod of 6 January, 386, at which eighty bishops were present, reaffirmed in nine canons the laws of the Church on various points of discipline (consecration of bishops, celibacy, etc.). The decisions of the council were communicated by the pope to the bishops of North Africa and probably in the same manner to others who had not attended the synod, with the command to act in accordance with them. Another letter which was sent to various churches dealt with the election of worthy bishops and priests. A synodal letter to the Gallican bishops, ascribed by Coustant and others to Siricius, is assigned to Pope Innocent I by other historians (P.L., XIII, 1179 sq.). In all his decrees the pope speaks with the consciousness of his supreme ecclesiastical authority and of his pastoral care over all the churches. Siricius was also obliged to take a stand against heretical movements. A Roman monk Jovinian came forward as an opponent of fasts, good works, and the higher merit of celibate life. He found some adherents among the monks and nuns of Rome. About 390-392 the pope held a synod at Rome, at which Jovinian and eight of his followers were condemned and excluded from communion with the Church. The decision was sent to St. Ambrose, the great Bishop of Milan and a friend of Siricius. Ambrose now held a synod of the bishops of upper Italy which, as the letter says, in agreement with his decision also condemned the heretics. Other heretics including Bishop Bonosus of Sardica (390), who was also accused of errors in the dogma of the Trinity, maintained the false doctrine that Mary was not always a virgin. Siricius and Ambrose opposed Bonosus and his adherents and refuted their false views. The pope then left further proceedings against Bonosus to the Bishop of Thessalonica and the other Illyrian bishops. Like his predecessor Damasus, Siricius also took part in the Priscillian controversy; he sharply condemned the episcopal accusers of Priscillian, who had brought the matter before the secular court and had prevailed upon the usurper Maximus to condemn to death and execute Priscillian and some of his followers. Maximus sought to justify his action by sending to the pope the proceedings in the case. Siricius, however, excommunicated Bishop Felix of Trier who supported Ithacius, the accuser of Priscillian, and in whose city the execution had taken place. The pope addressed a letter to the Spanish bishops in which he stated the conditions under which the converted Priscillians were to be restored to communion with the Church. According to the life in the "Liber Pontificalis" (ed. Duchesne, I, 216), Siricius also took severe measures against the Manichæans at Rome. However, as Duchesne remarks (loc. cit., notes) it cannot be assumed from the writings of the converted Augustine, who was a Manichæan when he went to Rome (383), that Siricius took any particular steps against them, yet Augustine would certainly have commented on this if such had been the case. The mention in the "Liber Pontificalis" belongs properly to the life of Pope Leo I. Neither is it probable, as Langen thinks (Gesch. der röm. Kirche, I, 633), that Priscillians are to be understood by this mention of Manichæans, although probably Priscillians were at times called Manichæans in the writings of that age. The western emperors, including Honorius and Valentinian III, issued laws against the Manichæans, whom they declared to be political offenders, and took severe action against the members of this sect (Codex Theodosian, XVI, V, various laws). In the East Siricius interposed to settle the Meletian schism at Antioch; this schism had continued notwithstanding the death in 381 of Meletius at the Council of Constantinople. The followers of Meletius elected Flavian as his successor, while the adherents of Bishop Paulinus, after the death of this bishop (388), elected Evagrius. Evagrius died in 392 and through Flavian's management no successor was elected. By the mediation of St. John Chrysostom and Theophilus of Alexandria an embassy, led by Bishop Acacius of Beroea, was sent to Rome to persuade Siricius to recognize Flavian and to readmit him to communion with the Church. At Rome the name of Siricius is particularly connected with the basilica over the grave of St. Paul on the Via Ostiensis which was rebuilt by the emperor as a basilica of five aisles during the pontificate of Siricius and was dedicated by the pope in 390. The name of Siricius is still to be found on one of the pillars that was not destroyed in the fire of 1823, and which now stands in the vestibule of the side entrance to the transept. Two of his contemporaries describe the character of Siricius disparagingly. Paulinus of Nola, who on his visit to Rome in 395 was treated in a guarded manner by the pope, speaks of the urbici papæ superba discretio, the haughty policy of the Roman bishop (Epist., V, 14). This action of the pope is, however, explained by the fact that there had been irregularities in the election and consecration of Paulinus (Buse, "Paulin von Nola", I, 193). Jerome, for his part, speaks of the "lack of judgment" of Siricius (Epist., cxxvii, 9) on account of the latter's treatment of Rufinus of Aquileia, to whom the pope had given a letter when Rufinus left Rome in 398, which showed that he was in communion with the Church. The reason, however, does not justify the judgment which Jerome expressed against the pope; moreover, Jerome in his polemical writings often exceeds the limits of propriety. All that is known of the labours of Siricius refutes the criticism of the caustic hermit of Bethlehem. The "Liber Pontificalis" gives an incorrect date for his death; he was buried in the cæmeterium of Priscilla on the Via Salaria. The text of the inscription on his grave is known (De Rossi, "Inscriptiones christ. urbis Romæ", II, 102, 138). His feast is celebrated on 26 November. His name was inserted in the Roman Martyrology by Benedict XIV. Liber Pontif., ed; DUCHESNE, I, 216-17; COUSTANT, Epist. Roman. Pont., I; JAFFÉ, Reg. Pont. Rom., I, 2nd ed, 40-42; BABUT, La plus ancienne Décrétale (PARIS, 1904); LANGEN, Gesch. der röm. Kirche, I (Bonn, 1881), 611 sqq.; RAUSCHEN, Jahrb. der christl. Kirche (Freiburg, 1897); GRISAR, Gesch. Roms u. der Päpste, I, passim; HEFELE, Konziliengesch., II, 2nd ed., 45-48, 51. J.P. KIRSCH Gugliemo Sirleto Gugliemo Sirleto Cardinal and scholar, born at Guardavalle near Stilo in Calabria, 1514; died at Rome, 6 October, 1585. The son of a physician, he received an excellent education, made the acquaintance of distinguished scholars at Rome, and became an intimate friend of Cardinal Marcello Cervino, later Pope Marcellus II. He prepared for Cervino, who was President of the Council of Trent in its initial period, extensive reports on all the important questions presented for discussion. After his appointment as custodian of the Vatican Library, Sirleto drew up a complete descriptive catalogue of its Greek manuscripts and prepared a new edition of the Vulgate. Paul IV named him prothonotary and tutor to two of his nephews. After this pope's death he taught Greek and Hebrew at Rome, numbering St. Charles Barromeo among his students. During the concluding period of the Council of Trent, he was, although he continued to reside at Rome, the Constant and most heeded adviser of the cardinal-legates. He was himself created cardinal in 1565, became Bishop of San Marco in Calabria in 1566, and a Squillace in 1568. An order of the papal secretary of state, however, enjoined his residence at Rome, where he was named, in 1570, librarian of the Vatican Library. His influence was paramount in the execution of the scientific undertakings decreed by the Council of Trent. He collaborated in the publication of the Roman Catechism, presided over the Commissions for the reform of Roman Breviary and Missal, and directed the work of the new edition of the Roman Martyrology. Highly appreciative of Greek culture, he entertained all friendly relations with the East and encouraged all efforts tending to ecclesiastical reunion. He was attended in his last illness by St. Philip Neri and was buried in the presence of Sixtus V. HURTER, Nomenclator Lit., I (2nd ed., Innsbruck, 1892), 95-6; BÄUMER-BIRON, Hist. du bréviaire, II (Paris, 1905), 169-71, passim. N.A. WEBER Diocese of Sirmium Diocese of Sirmium (SZERÉM, SIRMIENSIS) Sirmium, situated near the modern town of Mitrovitz in Slavonia; its church is said to have been founded by St. Peter. The district of Szerém was subject to the Archbishop of Kalocsa after the Christianization of Hungary. In 1228, the archbishop petitioned the Holy See, in consideration of the large extent of his diocese, to found a new bishopric, and in 1229 Gregory IX established the See of Szerém, the jurisdiction of which covered almost exclusively the country on the right bank of the Sava River. The see was under the Turkish Government in 1526. It had no bishop from 1537 to 1578, and was held by a titular bishop after 1624. In 1709 the see was re-established with some changes in its territory. Clement XIV united it with Bosnia and Diakovár in 1773. SZÖRÉNYI, Vindicioe Sirmienses (Buda, 1746); FARLATI, Illyricum sacrum, VII, 449-811; PRAY, Specimen Hierarchiaoe Hungarioe, II, 362-95; A katolikus Magyarország (Budapest, 1902). A. ÁLDÁSY. Jacques Sirmond Jacques Sirmond One of the greatest scholars of the seventeenth century, born at Riom in the Department of Puy-de-Dome, France, October, 1559; died in Paris, 7 October 1651. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1576 and was appointed in 1581 professor of classical languages in Paris, where he numbered St. Francis de Sales among his pupils. Called to Rome in 1590, he was for sixteen years private secretary to the Jesuit superior general, Aquaviva, devoting his leisure moments during the same period to the study of the literary and historical treasures of antiquity. He entertained intimate relations with several learned men then present at Rome, among them Bellarmine and particularly Baronius, whom he was helpful in the composition of the "Annales". In 1608 he returned to Paris, and in 1637 became confessor to King Louis XIII. His first literary production appeared in 1610, and from that date until the end of this life almost every year witnessed the publication of some new work. The results of his literary labours are chiefly represented by editions of Greek and Latin Christian writings. Theodoret of Cyrus, Ennodius, Idatius of Gallicia, Sidonius Apollinaris, Theodulph of Orleans, Paschasius Radbertus, Flodoard, and Hincmar of Rheims are among the writers whose works he edited either completely or in part. Of great importance were his editions of the capitularies of Charles the Bald and successors and the ancient councils of France: "Karoli Calvi et successorum aliquot Franciae regum Capitula" (Paris, 1623); "Concilia antiqua Galliae" (Paris, 1629). His collected works, a complete list of which will be found in de Backer- Sommervogel (VII, 1237-60), were published in Paris in 1696 and again at Venice in 1728. DE BACKER-SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. De la comp. de Jésus, VII (Brussels, 1896), 1237-61; COLOMIÈS, Vie du Père Sirmond (La Rochelle, 1671); CHALMERS, Biog. Dict. (London, 1816), s. v. N.A. WEBER Pope Sisinnius Pope Sisinnius Date of birth unknown; died 4 February, 708, Successor of John VII, he was consecrated probably 15 January, 708, and died after a brief pontificate of about three weeks; he was buried in St. Peter's. He was a Syrian by birth and the son of one John. Although he was so afflicted with gout that he was unable even to feed himself, he is nevertheless said to have been a man of strong character, and to have been able to take thought for the good of the city. He gave orders to prepare lime to repair the walls of Rome, and before he died consecrated a bishop for Corsica. Liber Pontificalis, I, 338: MANN, The Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages, I, pt. ii (St. Louis and London, 1902), 124. HORACE K. MANN Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati, Ohio On 27 October, 1829, at the request of Bishop Fenwick of Cincinnati, several sisters from Mother Seton's community at Emmitsburg, Maryland, opened an orphanage, parochial school, and academy on Sycamore Street opposite the old cathedral, then occupying the present site of St. Xavier's Church and college. When Bishop Purcell built the new cathedral on Eighth and Plum Sts., the sisters moved to Third and Plum Sts., and later the academy was transferred to George St., near John. When Father Etienne, superior of the Daughters of Charity of France, in December, 1850, effected the affiliation of the sisterhood at Emmitsburg with the Daughters of Charity of France, Sister Margaret George was superior in Cincinnati. She had entered the community at Emmitsburg early in 1812, and had filled the office of treasurer and secretary of the community, teaching in the academy during most of Mother Seton's life. She wrote the early records of the American Daughters of Charity, heard all the discussions regarding rules and constitutions, and left to her community in Cincinnati letters from the first bishops and clergy of the United States, Mother Seton's original Journal written in 1803 and some of her letters, and valuable writings of her own. She upheld Mother Seton's rules, constitutions, traditions, and costume, confirmed by Archbishop Carroll 17 Jan., 1812, objecting with Archbishop Carroll and Mother Seton to the French rule in its fulness, in that it limited the exercise of charity to females in the orphanages and did not permit the teaching of boys in the schools. The sisters in New York had separated from Emmitsburg in December, 1846, because they were to be withdrawn from the boys' orphanage. When it was finally decided that the community at Emmitsburg was to affiliate with the French Daughters of Charity, the sisters in Cincinnati laid before Archbishop Purcell their desire to preserve the original rule of Mother Seton's foundation. He confirmed the sisters in their desire and notified the superior of the French Daughters of Charity that he would take under his protection the followers of Mother Seton. Archbishop Purcell became ecclesiastical superior and was succeeded by Archbishop Elder and Archbishop Moeller. The novitiate in Cincinnati was opened in 1852. During that year twenty postulants were received. The first Catholic hospital was opened by the sisters in November, 1852. In February, 1853, the sisters took charge of the Mary and Martha Society, a charitable organization established for the benefit of the poor of the city. On 15 August, 1853, the sisters purchased their first property on the corner of Sixth and Parks Sts., and opened there in September a boarding and select day-school. The following July they bought a stone house on Mt. Harrison near Mt. St. Mary Seminary of the West, and called it Mt. St. Vincent. The community was incorporated under the laws of Ohio in 1854 as "The Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati, Ohio". Mother Margaret George, Sister Sophia Gillmeyer, Mother Josephine Harvey, Sister Anthony O'Connell, Mother Regina Mattingly, Sister Antonio McCaffrey, and Sister Gonzalva Dougherty were the incorporators. In 1856 Mt. St. Vincent Academy was transferred to the "Cedars", the former home of Judge Alderson. It remained the mother-house until 29 September, 1869, and the boarding-school until July, 1906. It is now a day academy and a residence for the sisters teaching adjacent parochial schools. In 1857 Bishop Bayley of New Jersey sent five postulants to Mt. St. Vincent, Cedar Grove, Cincinnati, to be trained by Mother Margaret George. At the conclusion of their novitiate, Mother Margaret and Sister Anthony were to have gone with them to Newark, New Jersey, to remain until the little community would be well established, but affairs proving too urgent, Mother Margaret interceded with the New York community, and Sisters Xavier and Catherine were appointed superiors over the little band. In July, 1859, Mother Margaret George having held the office of mother for the two terms allowed by the constitution, was succeeded by Mother Josephine Harvey. During the Civil War many of the sisters served in the hospitals. Between 1852 and 1865 the sisters had taken charge of ten parochial schools. Archbishop Lamy of New Mexico, and Bishop Machebeuf of Colorado, both pioneer priests of Ohio, in 1865 petitioned Archbishop Purcell for a colony of Sisters of Charity to open a hospital and orphanage in the West. Accordingly four sisters left Cincinnati 21 August, 1865, arriving at Santa Fé, 13 September, 1865. The archbishop gave them his own residence which had been used also as a seminary. There were twenty-five orphans to be cared for and some sick to be nursed. On 15 August, 1866, Joseph C. Butler and Lewis Worthington presented Sister Anthony O'Connell with the Good Samaritan Hospital, a building erected by the Government for a Marine Hospital at a cost of $300,000. Deeply impressed by the charity done in "Old St. John's" during the war, these non-Catholic gentlemen bought the Government hospital for $90,000 and placed the deeds in the hands of Sister Anthony, Butler suggesting the name "Good Samaritan". Early in 1870 Bishop Domenec of Pittsburg, desiring a diocesan branch of Mother Seton's community, sent four postulants to be trained in the Cincinnati novitiate. On their return they were accompanied by five of the Cincinnati sisters who were to remain with them for a limited time, and to be withdrawn one by one. Finally all were recalled but Mother Aloysia Lowe and Sister Ann Regina Ennis, the former being superior and latter mistress of novices. Mother Aloysia governed the community firmly but tenderly, and before her death (1889) had the satisfaction of seeing the sisters in their new mother-house at Seton Hill, Greensburg, Pa., the academy having been blessed, and the chapel dedicated, 3 May, 1889. Mother Aloysia's term of office had expired 19 July, 1889, and she was succeeded by Sister Ann Regina (d. 16 May, 1894). The community at Greensburg, Pa., at present number more than three hundred. Their St. Joseph Academy at the mother-house is flourishing; they teach about thirty parochial schools in the Dioceses of Altoona and Pittsburg and conduct the Pittsburg Hospital and Roselia Foundling Asylum in Pittsburg. From 1865 to 1880 the Sisters in Cincinnati opened thirty-three branch houses, one of these being the St. Joseph Foundling and Maternity Hospital, a gift to Sister Anthony from Joseph Butler. In 1869 a site for a mother-house, five miles from Cedar Grove, was purchased. The first Mass was offered in the novitiate chapel, 24 October, 1869, by Rev. Thos. S. Byrne, the chaplain, the present Bishop of Nashville, Tennessee. In 1882 the building of the new mother-house began under his direction. Before its completion Mother Regina Mattingly died (4 June, 1883). Mother Josephine Harvey again assumed the office. In 1885 the new St. Joseph was burned to the ground. The present mother-house was begun at once under the superintendence of Rev. T. S. Byrne. Mt. St. Mary Seminary, closed since the financial troubles, was now used for the sisters' novitiate. In July, 1886, the sisters took possession of the west wing of the mother-house, and the following year the seminary reopened. Mother Josephine Harvey resigned the office of mother in 1888, and was succeeded by Mother Mary Paul Hayes, who filled Mother Josephine's unexpired term and was re-elected in July, 1890, dying the following April. Mother Mary Blanche Davis was appointed to the office of mother, and held it until July, 1899. During her incumbency the Seton Hospital, the Glockner Sanitarium at Colorado Springs, St. Joseph Sanitarium, Mt. Clemens, Mich., and Santa Maria Institute for Italians were begun; additions were made to the mother-house. During the administration of Mother Sebastian Shea were built: the St. Joseph Sanitarium, Pueblo; the San Rafael Hospital, Trinidad; the St. Vincent Hospital, Santa Fé, New Mexico; the St. Vincent Academy, Albuquerque; and the Good Samaritan Annex in Clifton. Mother Mary Blanche resumed the duties of office in 1905, and was re-elected in 1908. During these terms a very large addition was built to the Glockner Sanitarium and to the St. Mary Sanitarium, Pueblo; the Hospital Antonio in Kenton, Ohio; a large boarding school for boys at Fayetteville, Ohio; the new Seton Hospital was bought; the new Good Samaritan Hospital was begun. Many parochial schools were opened, among them a school for coloured children in Memphis, Tennessee. The community numbers: about 800 members; 74 branch houses; 5 academies; 2 orphan asylums; 1 foundling asylum; 1 Italian institute; 11 hospitals or sanitariums; 1 Old Ladies' Home; 53 parochial schools throughout Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, Colorado, and New Mexico. SISTER MARY AGNES Sisters of the Little Company of Mary Sisters of the Little Company of Mary A congregation founded in 1877 in England to honour in a particular manner the maternal Heart of the Blessed Virgin, especially in the mystery of Calvary. The sisters make an entire consecration of themselves to her, and aim at imitating her virtues. They devote themselves to the sick and dying, which is their principal exterior work. They nurse the sick in their own homes, and also receive them in the hospitals and nursing-homes attached to their convents. They make no distinction of class, nationality or creed, and exact no charge for their services, but accept any offering which may be made them. Besides the personal attendance on the sick, they are bound to pray continually for the dying, and in the novitiate watch before the Blessed Sacrament, both by day and night, praying for the dying. When circumstances require it, the sisters may engage in various forms of mission work, especially in poor districts. The rules received final approbation from Leo XIII in 1893. The order conducts houses in: Italy (1 in Rome, 1 at Florence, 1 at Fiesole); England (3 in London, 1 in Nottingham); Ireland (1 at Limerick, 1 in Fermoy); Malta (1); Untied States (Chicago); Australia (2 at Sydney, 1 at Adelaide); South Africa (Port Elizabeth). The sisters when in the convent wear a black habit and blue veil, with a white cloak in the chapel; when nursing, the habit is of white linen, with a blue veil. An association of pious women, known as "Pie Donne" or "Affiliated", are aggregated to the order, and share in its prayers and good works, some residing in their own homes, others living in the convent, though in part separated from the community. A confraternity is attached to the order, called the Calvary Confraternity, the members of which assist those in their last agony by their prayers and, if possible, by personal attendance. MOTHER M. PATRICK Sistine Choir Sistine Choir Although it is known that the Church, from her earliest days, employed music in her cult, it was not until the time of her emergence from the catacombs that she began freely to display her beauty and splendour in sacred song. As early as in the pontificate of Sylvester I (314-35) we find a regularly-constituted company of singers, under the name of schola cantorum, living together in a building devoted to their exclusive use. The word schola was in those days the legal designation of an association of equals in any calling or profession and did not primarily denote, as in our time, a school. It had more the nature of a guild, a characteristic which clung to the papal choir for many centuries. Hilary II (461-8) ordained that the pontifical singers live in community, while Gregory the Great (590-604) not only made permanent the existing institution attached to St. John Lateran and including at that time in its membership monks, secular clergy, and boys, but established a second and similar one in connection with the Basilica of St. Peter. The latter is supposed to have served as a sort of preparatory school for the former. For several centuries the papal schola cantorum retained the same general character. Its head, archicantor or primicerius, was always a clergyman of high rank and often a bishop. While it was his duty to intone the various chants to be followed by the rest of the singers, he was by no means their master in the modern technical sense. It is at the time of the transfer of the papal see from Rome to Avignon in the thirteenth century that a marked change takes place in the institution. Innocent IV did not take his schola cantorum with him to his new abode, but provided for its continuance in Rome by turning over to it properties, tithes, and other revenues. Community life among the singers seems to have come to an end at this period. Clement V (1305-14) formed a new choir at Avignon, consisting for the most part of French singers, who showed a decided preference for the new developments in church music -- the déchant and falsibordoni, which had in the meantime gained great vogue in France. When Gregory XI (1370-8) returned to Rome, he took his singers with him and amalgamated them with the still-existing, at least in name, ancient schola cantorum. Before the sojourn of the papal Court at Avignon, it had been the duty of the schola to accompany the pope to the church where he held station, but after the return to Rome, the custom established at Avignon of celebrating all pontifical functions in the papal church or chapel was continued and has existed ever since. The primicerius of former times is now no longer mentioned but is replaced by the magister capellae, which title, however, continues to be more an honorary one held by a bishop or prelate than in indication of technical leadership, as may be gathered from the relative positions assigned to various dignitaris, their prerogatives, etc. Thus the magister capellae came immediately after the cardinals, followed, in the order given, by the sacrista, cantores, capellani, and clerici. With the building by Sixtus IV (1471-84) of the church for the celebration of all papal functions since known as the Sistine Chapel, the original schola cantorum and subsequent capella pontificia or capella papale, which still retains more or less of the guild character, becomes the capella sistina, or Sistine Choir, whose golden era takes its beginning. Up to this time the number of singers had varied considerably, there being sometimes as few as nine men and six boys. By a Bull dated November, 1483, Sixtus IV fixed the number at twenty-four, six for each part. After the year 1441 the records no longer mention the presence of boys in the choir, the high voices, soprano and alto, being thenceforth sung by natural (and occasionally unnatural) soprani falsetti and high tenors respectively. Membership in the papal choir became the great desideratum of singers, contrapuntists, and composers of every land, which accounts for the presence in Rome, at=20least for a time, of most of the great names of that period. The desire to re-establish a sort of preparatory school for the papal choir, on the plan of the ancient schola, and incidentally to become independent of the ultramontane, or foreign, singers, singers, led Julius II (1503-13) to issue, on 19 February, 1512, a Bull founding the capella Julia, which to this day performs all the choir duties at St. Peter's. It became indeed, and has ever since been, a nursery for, and stepping-stone to, membership in the Sistine Choir. The high artistic aims of its founder have, however, but rarely been attained, owing to the rarity of the truly great choirmasters. Leo X (1513-21), himself a musician, by choosing as head of the organization a real musician, irrespective of his clerical rank, took a step which was of the greatest importance for the future. It had the effect of transforming a group of vocal virtuosi on equal footing into a compact vocal body, whose interpretation of the greatest works of polyphony which we possess, and which were then coming into existence, became the model for the rest of the world, not only then but for all time. Leo's step was somewhat counteracted by Sixtus V (1534-49) on 17 November, 1545, published a Bull approving a new constitution of the choir, which has been in force ever since, and according to which the choir, which has been in force ever since, and according to which the choir-master proposes the candidates for membership, who are then examined by the whole company of singers. Since that time the state of life of the candidate has not been a factor. While the Sistine Choir has, since its incipiency, undergone many vicissitudes, its artistic and moral level fluctuating, like all things human, with the mutations of the times, it has ever had for its purpose and object to hold up, at the seat of ecclesiastical authority, the highest model of liturgical music as well as of its performance. When the Gregorian melodies were still the sole music of the Church, it was the papal choir that set the standard for the rest of Christendom, both s regards the purity of the melodies and their rendition. After these melodies had blossomed into polyphony, it was in the Sistine Chapel that it received adequate interpretation. Here the artistic degeneration, which church music suffered in different periods in many countries, never took hold for any length of time. The use of instruments, even of the organ, has ever been excluded. The choir's ideal has always been that purely vocal style, Since the accession of the present pope [1912], and under its present conductor, the falsetto voices have been succeeded by boys' voices, and the artistic level of the institute has been raised to a higher point than it had occupied for the previous thirty or forty years. Haberl, Baustein fur Musikgeschicte, III, Die romische Schola Cantorum und die papstlichen Kapellsanger bis zur Mitte des 16. Jarhunderts (Leipzig, 1888); Schelle, Die papstliche Sangerschule in Rom (Leipzig, 1872); Kienle, Choralschule (Freiburg, 1899); Baini, Memorie storico-critiche della via e delle opere di Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina (Rome, 1828). JOSEPH OTTEN Sitifis Sitifis (Sitifensis). Titular see in Mauretania Sitifensis. Sitifis, situated in Maurentania Caesarensis, on the road from Carthage to Cirta, was of no importance under the Numidian kings and became prominent only when Nerva established a colony of veterans there. When Mauretania Sitifensis was created, at the close of the third century, Sitifis became its capital. Under the Vandals it was the chief town of a district called Zaba. It was still the capital of a province under Byzantine rule and was then a place of strategic importance. Captured by the Arabs in the seventh century, it was almost ruined at the time of the French occupation (1838). It is now Setif, the chief town of an arrondissement in the Department of Constantine, Algeria. It contains 15,000 inhabitants, of whom 3700 are Europeans and 1,600 Jews; it has a trade in cattle, cereals, leather, and cloths. Interesting Christian inscriptions are to be found there, one of 452 mentioning the relics of St. Lawrence, another naming two martyrs of Sitifis, Justus and Decurius; there are a museum and the ruins of a Byzantine fortress. St. Augustine, who had frequent relations with Sitifis, informs us that in his time it contained a monastery and an episcopal school, and that it suffered from a violent earthquake, on which occasion 2000 persons, through fear of death, received baptism (Ep., lxxxiv; Serm., xix). Five bishops of this see are known: Servus, in 409, mentioned in a letter of St. Augustine; Novatus present at the Council of Carthage (484), and exiled by Huneric; Optatus, at the Council of Carthage (525). Smith, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geog., s. v. Sitifi; Muller Notes a Ptolmy, ed. Didot, I. 612; Toulotte, Geog. de l'Afrique chretienne: Mauretanie (Montreuil, 1894), 185-9; Diehl, L'Afrique byzantine (Paris, 1896), passim. S. PÉTRIDÈS Buenaventura Sitjar Buenaventura Sitjar Born at Porrera, Island of Majorca, 9 December, 1739; died at San Antonio, Cal., 3 Sept., 1808. In April, 1758, he received the habit of St. Francis. After his ordination he joined the College of San Fernando, Mexico. In 1770 he was assigned to California, arriving at San Diego, 21 May, 1771. He was present at the founding of the Mission of San Antonio, and was appointed first missionary by Father Junipero Serra. He toiled there until his death, up to which time 3400 Indians had been baptized. Father Sitjar mastered the Telame Language, spoken at the Mission of San Antonio, and compiled a vocabulary with Spanish explanations, published at New York in 1861. Though the list of words is not as long as Arroyo de la Cuesta's dictionary of 2884 words and sentences in the Mutsun idiom of Mission San Juan Bautista, Sitjar's gives the pronunciation and fuller explanations. He also left a journal of exploring expedition which he accompanied in 1795. His body was interred in the sanctuary of the church. Archives of Mission of Santa Barbara; Records of Mission San Antonio; SITJAR, Vocabulary, in SHEA'S Library of American Linguistics (New York, 1861); ENGELHARDT, The Franciscans in California (Harbor Springs, 1897); BANCROFT, California, II (San Fancisco, 1886). ZEPHYRIN ENGELHARDT Siunia Siunia Siunia, a titular see, suffragan of Sebastia in Armenia Prima. Siunia is not a town, but a province situated between Goghtcha, Araxa, and Aghovania, in the present Russian districts of Chamakha, or Baku, and Elisavetpol. The real name should be Sisacan, the Persian form, for Siunia got its name from Sisac, the son of Gegham, the fifth Armenian sovereign. Its first rulers, vassals of the kings of Armenia or the shahs of Persia, date back to the fourth century of our era; about 1046 it became an independent kingdom, but only till 1166. The Church of Siunia was established in the fifth century or perhaps a little earlier. It soon became a metropolis subject to the Catholicos of Armenia, and, as we see in a letter of the patriarch Ter Sargis in 1006, it counted twelve crosiers, which must signify twelve suffragan sees. The archdiocese contained 1400 villages and 28 monasteries. In the ninth century the metropolitan see was fixed in the convent of Tatheo, situated between Ouronta and Migri, sixty-two miles south-east of Lake Gokcha. Separated for a brief interval from Noravank, the See of Siunia was reunited to it, but was definitively separated again in the thirteenth century. In 1837 the Diocese of Siunia was, by order of the Synod of Etchmiadzin, suppressed and subjected directly to the catholicos under the supervision of the Bishop of Erivan, who had a vicar at Tatheo. The complete list of the bishops and metropolitans of Siunia, from the fifth century till the nineteenth century, is known; amongst them we may mention Petros, a writer at the beginning of the sixth century, and Stephanos Orbelian, the historian of his Church. It is not known why the Roman Curia introduced this episcopal title, which does not appear in any Greek or Latin "Notitia episcopatuum", and was never a suffragan of Sebastia. LE QUIEN, Oriens christianus, I (Paris, 1740), 1443; BROSSET, Listes chronologiques des princes et des métropolites de Siounie in Bulletin de l'Académie des Sciences de Saint-Pétersbourg, IV (1862), 497-562; STEPHANOS ORERLIAN, Histoire de la Siounie, tr. BROSSET (Saint-Petersburg, 1864). S. VAILHÉ. Pope St. Sixtus I Pope St. Sixtus I Pope St. Sixtus I (in the oldest documents, Xystus is the spelling used for the first three popes of that name), succeeded St. Alexander and was followed by St. Telesphorus. According to the "Liberian Catalogue" of popes, he ruled the Church during the reign of Adrian "a conulatu Nigri et Aproniani usque Vero III et Ambibulo", that is, from 117 to 126. Eusebius, who in his "Chronicon" made use of a catalogue of popes different from the one he used in his "Historia ecclesiastica", states in his "Chronicon" that Sixtus I was pope from 114 to 124, while in his "History" he makes him rule from 114 to 128. All authorities agree that he reigned about ten years. He was a Roman by birth, and his father's name was Pastor. According to the "Liber Pontificalis" (ed. Duchesne, I, 128), he passed the following three ordinances: (1) that none but sacred ministers are allowed to touch the sacred vessels; (2) that bishops who have been summoned to the Holy See shall, upon their return, not be received by their diocese except on presenting Apostolic letters; (3) that after the Preface in the Mass the priest shall recite the Sanctus with the people. The "Felician Catalogue" of popes and the various martyrologies give him the title of martyr. His feast is celebrated on 6 April. He was buried in the Vatican, beside the tomb of St. Peter. His relics are said to have been transferred to Alatri in 1132, though O Jozzi ("Il corpo di S. Sisto I., papa e martire rivendicato alla basilica Vaticana", Rome, 1900) contends that they are still in the Vatican Basilica. Butler (Lives of the Saints, 6 April) states that Clement X gave some of his relics to Cardinal de Retz, who placed them in the Abbey of St. Michael in Lorraine. The Xystus who is commemorated in the Canon of the Mass is Xystus II, not Xystus I. Acta SS., April, I, 531-4; Liber Pontificatis, ed. DUCHESNE, I (Paris, 1886), 128; MARINI, Cenni storici popolari sopra S. Sisto I, papa e martire, e suo culto in Aletri (Foligno, 1884); DE PERSIIS, Del pontificato di S. Sisto I, papa e martire, della translazione delle sue reliquie da Roma ecc., memorie (Alatri, 1884); BARMBY in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v. Sixtus (2) I. MICHAEL OTT Pope St. Sixtus II Pope St. Sixtus II (XYSTUS). Elected 31 Aug., 257, martyred at Rome, 6 Aug., 258. His origin is unknown. The "Liber Pontificalis" says that he was a Greek by birth, but this is probably a mistake, originating from the false assumption that he was identical with a Greek philosopher of the same name, who was the author of the so-called "Sentences" of Xystus. During the pontificate of his predecessor, St. Stephen, a sharp dispute had arisen between Rome and the African and Asiatic Churches, concerning the rebaptism of heretics, which had threatened to end in a complete rupture between Rome and the Churches of Africa and Asia Minor (see CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE, SAINT). Sixtus II, whom Pontius (Vita Cyprian, cap. xiv) styles a good and peaceful priest (bonus et pacificus sacerdos), was more conciliatory than St. Stephen and restored friendly relations with these Churches, though, like his predecessor, he upheld the Roman usage of not rebaptizing heretics. Shortly before the pontificate of Sixtus II the Emperor Valerian issued his first edict of persecution, which made it binding upon the Christians to participate in the national cult of the pagan gods and forbade them to assemble in the cemeteries, threatening with exile or death whomsoever was found to disobey the order. In some way or other, Sixtus II managed to perform his functions as chief pastor of the Christians without being molested by those who were charged with the execution of the imperial edict. But during the first days of August, 258, the emperor issued a new and far more cruel edict against the Christians, the import of which has been preserved in a letter of St. Cyprian to Successus, the Bishop of Abbir Germaniciana (Ep. lxxx). It ordered bishops, priests, and deacons to be summarily put to death ("episcopi et presbyteri et diacones incontinenti animadvertantur"). Sixtus II was one of the first to fall a victim to this imperial enactment ("Xistum in cimiterio animadversum sciatis VIII. id. Augusti et cum eo diacones quattuor"--Cyprian, Ep. lxxx). In order to escape the vigilance of the imperial officers he assembled his flock on 6 August at one of the less-known cemeteries, that of Pr=E6textatus, on the left side of the Appian Way, nearly opposite the cemetery of St. Callistus. While seated on his chair in the act of addressing his flock he was suddenly apprehended by a band of soldiers. There is some doubt whether he was beheaded forthwith, or was first brought before a tribunal to receive his sentence and then led back to the cemetery for execution. The latter opinion seems to be the more probable. The inscription which Pope Damasus (366-84) placed on his tomb in the cemetery of St. Callistus may be interpreted in either sense. The entire inscription is to be found in the works of St. Damasus (P.L., XIII, 383-4, where it is wrongly supposed to be an epitaph for Pope Stephen I), and a few fragments of it were discovered at the tomb itself by de Rossi (Inscr. Christ., II, 108). The "Liber Pontificalis" mentions that he was led away to offer sacrifice to the gods ("ductus ut sacrificaret demoniis"--I, 155). St. Cyprian states in the above-named letter, which was written at the latest one month after the martyrdom of Sixtus, that "the prefects of the City were daily urging the persecution in order that, if any were brought before them, they might be punished and their property confiscated". The pathetic meeting between St. Sixtus II and St. Lawrence, as the former was being led to execution, of which mention is made in the unauthentic "Acts of St. Lawrence" as well as by St. Ambrose (Officiorum, lib. I, c. xli, and lib. II, c. xxviii) and the poet Prudentius (Peristephanon, II), is probably a mere legend. Entirely contrary to truth is the statement of Prudentius (ibid., lines 23-26) that Sixtus II suffered martyrdom on the cross, unless by an unnatural trope the poet uses the specific word cross (" Jam Xystus adfixus cruci") for martyrdom in general, as Duchesne and Allard (see below) suggest. Four deacons, Januarius, Vincentius, Magnus, and Stephanus, were apprehended with Sixtus and beheaded with him at the same cemetery. Two other deacons, Felicissimus and Agapitus, suffered martyrdom on the same day. The feast of St. Sixtus II and these six deacons is celebrated on 6 August, the day of their martyrdom. The remains of Sixtus were transferred by the Christians to the papal crypt in the neighbouring cemetery of St. Callistus. Behind his tomb was enshrined the bloodstained chair on which he had been beheaded. An oratory (Oratorium Xysti) was erected above the cemetery of St. Pr=E6textatus, at the spot where he was martyred, and was still visited by pilgrims of the seventh and the eighth century. For some time Sixtus II was believed to be the author of the so-called "Sentences", or "Ring of Sixtus", originally written by a Pythagorean philosopher and in the second century revised by a Christian. This error arose because in his introduction to a Latin translation of these "Sentences". Rufinus ascribes them to Sixtus of Rome, bishop and martyr. It is certain that Pope Sixtus II is not their author (see Conybeare, "The Ring of Pope Xystus now first rendered into English, with an historical and critical commentary", London, 1910). Harnack (Texte und Untersuchungen zur altchrist. Literatur, XIII, XX) ascribes to him the treatise "Ad Novatianum", but his opinion has been generally rejected (see Rombold in "Theol. Quartalschrift", LXXII, Tübingen, 1900). Some of his letters are printed in P.L., V, 79-100. A newly discovered letter was published by Conybeare in "English Hist. Review", London, 1910. Acta SS., Aug., II, 124-42; DUCHESNE, Liber Pontificalis, I, 155-6; BARMBY in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v. Xystus; ROHAULT DE FLEURY, Les Saints de la messe, III (Paris, 1893): HEALY, The Valerian Persecution (Boston and New York, 1905); 176-9; ALLARD, Les derni=E8res persecutions du troisi=E8me si=E8cle (Paris, 1907), 80-92, 343-349; DE ROSSI, Roma Sotteranea, II (Rome; 1864-77), 87-97; WILPERT, Die P=E4pstgraber und die C=E4ciliengruft in der Katakombe des hl. Callistus, supplement to De Rossi's Roma Sotteranea (Freiburg im Br., 1909). MICHAEL OTT Pope St. Sixtus III Pope St. Sixtus III (XYSTUS). Consecrated 31 July, 432; d. 440. Previous to his accession he was prominent among the Roman clergy and in correspondence with St. Augustine. He reigned during the Nestorian and Pelagian controversies, and it was probably owing to his conciliatory disposition that he was falsely accused of leanings towards these heresies. As pope he approved the Acts of the Council of Ephesus and endeavoured to restore peace between Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch. In the Pelagian controversy he frustrated the attempt of Julian of Eclanum to be readmitted to communion with the Catholic Church. He defended the pope's right of supremacy over Illyricum against the local bishops and the ambitious designs of Proclus of Constantinople. At Rome he restored the Basilica of Liberius, now known as St. Mary Major, enlarged the Basilica of St. Lawrence-Without-the-Walls, and obtained precious gifts from the Emperor Valentinian III for St. Peter's and the Lateran Basilica. The work which asserts that the consul Bassus accused him of crime is a forgery. He is the author of eight letters (in P.L., L, 583 sqq.), but he did not write the works "On Riches", "On False Teachers", and "On Chastity" ("De divitiis", "De malis doctoribus", "De castitate") attributed to him. His feast is kept on 28 March. DUCHESNE (ed.), Lib. Pont., I (Paris, 1886), 126-27, 232-37; BARMBY in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v. Sixtus (3); GRISAR, History of Rome and the Popes, tr. CAPPADELTA, I (St. Louis, 1911), nos. 54, 135, 140, 144, 154. N.A. WEBER Pope Sixtus IV Pope Sixtus IV (FRANCESCO DELLA ROVERE) Born near Abisola, 21 July, 1414; died 12 Aug., 1484. His parents were poor, and while still a child he was destined for the Franciscan order. Later he studied philosophy and theology with great success at the University of Pavia, and lectured at Padua, Bologna, Pavia, Siena, and Florence, having amongst other eminent disciples the famous Cardinal Bessarion. After filling the post of procurator of his order in Rome and Provincial of Liguria, he was in 1467 created Cardinal of S. Pietro in Vincoli by Paul II. Whatever leisure he now had was devoted to theology, and in 1470 he published a treatise on the Precious blood and a work on the Immaculate Conception, in which latter he endeavoured to prove that Aquinas and Scotus, though differing in words, were really of one mind upon the question. The conclave which assembled on the death of Paul II elected him pope, and he ascended the chair of St. Peter as Sixtus IV. His first thought was the prosecution of the war against the Turks, and legates were appointed for France, Spain, Germany, Hungary, and Poland, with the hope of enkindling enthusiasm in these countries. The crusade, however, achieved little beyond the bringing back to Rome of twenty-five Turkish prisoners, who were paraded in triumph through the streets of the city. Sixtus continued the policy of his predecessor Paul II with regard to France, and denounced Louis XI for insisting on the royal consent being given before papal decrees could be published in his kingdom. He also made an effort like his predecessor for the reunion of the Russian Church with Rome, but his negotiations were without result. He now turned his attention almost exclusively to Italian politics, and fell more and more under his dominating passion of nepotism, heaping riches and favours on his unworthy relations. In 1478 took place the famous conspiracy of the Pazzi, planned by the pope's nephew -- Cardinal Rafael Riario -- to overthrow the Medici and bring Florence under the Riarii. The pope was cognizant of the plot, though probably not of the intention to assassinate, and even had Florence under interdict because it rose in fury against the conspirators and brutal murderers of Giuliano de' Medici. He now entered upon a two years' war with Florence, and encouraged the Venetians to attack Ferrara, which he wished to obtain for his nephew Girolamo Riario. Ercole d'Este, attacked by Venice, found allies in almost every Italian state, and Ludovico Sforza, upon whom the pope relied for support, did nothing to help him. The allied princes forced Sixtus to make peace, and the chagrin which this caused him is said to have hastened his death. Henceforth, until the Reformation, the secular interests of the papacy were of paramount importance. The attitude of Sixtus towards the conspiracy of the Pazzi, his wars and treachery, his promotion to the highest offices in the Church of such men as Pietro and Girolamo are blots upon his career. Nevertheless, there is a praiseworthy side to his pontificate. He took measures to suppress abuses in the Inquisition, vigorously opposed the Waldenses, and annulled the decrees of the Council of Constance. He was a patron of arts and letters, building the famous Sistine Chapel, the Sistine Bridge across the Tiber, and becoming the second founder of the Vatican Library. Under him Rome once more became habitable, and he did much to improve the sanitary conditions of the city. He brought down water from the Quirinal to the Fountain of Trevi, and began a transformation of the city which death alone hindered him from completing. In his private life Sixtus IV was blameless. The gross accusations brought against him by his enemy Infessura have no foundation; his worst vice was nepotism, and his greatest misfortune was that he was destined to be placed at the head of the States of the Church at a time when Italy was emerging from the era of the republics, and territorial princes like the pope were forced to do battle with the great despots. PASTOR, History of the Popes, IV (London, 1894); GREGOROVIUS, Rome in the Middle Ages, IV (London, 1901); BURKHARDT, Geschichte der Renaissance in Italien (1904); FRANTZ, Sixtus IV und die Republik Florenz (Ratisbon, 1880). R. URBAN BUTLER Pope Sixtus V Pope Sixtus V (FELICE PERETTI). Born at Grottamare near Montalto, 13 December, 1521; elected 24 April, 1585; crowned 1 May, 1585; died in the Quirinal, 27 August, 1590. He belonged to a Dalmatian family which in the middle of the preceding century had fled to Italy from the Turks who were devastating Illyria and threatened to invade Dalmatia. His father was a gardener and it is said of Felice that, when a boy, he was a swineherd. At the age of nine he came to the Minorite convent at Montalto, where his uncle, Fra Salvatore, was a friar. Here he became a novice at the age of twelve. He was educated at Montalto, Ferrara, and Bologna and was ordained at Siena in 1547. The talented young priest gained a high reputation as a preacher. At Rome, where in 1552 he preached the Lenten sermons in the Church of Santi Apostoli, his successful preaching gained for him the friendship of very influential men, such as Cardinal Carpi, the protector of his order; the Cardinals Caraffa and Ghislieri, both of whom became popes; St. Philip Neri and St. Ignatius. He was successively appointed rector of his convent at Siena in 1550, of San Lorenzo at Naples in 1553, and of the convent of the Frari at Venice in 1556. A year later Pius IV appointed him also counselor to the Inquisition at Venice. His zeal and severity in the capacity of inquisitor displeased the Venetian Government, which demanded and obtained his recall in 1560. Having returned to Rome he was made counsellor to the Holy Office, professor at the Sapienza, and general procurator and vicar Apostolic of his order. In 1565 Pius IV designated him to accompany to Spain Cardinal Buoncompagni (afterwards Gregory XIII), who was to investigate a charge of heresy against Archbishop Carranza of Toledo. From this time dates the antipathy between Peretti and Buoncompagni, which declared itself more openly during the latter's pontificate (1572-85). Upon his return to Rome in 1566 Pius V created him Bishop of Sant' Agata dei Goti in the Kingdom of Naples and later chose him as his confessor. On 17 May, 1570, the same pope created him cardinal-priest with the titular Church of S. Simeone, which he afterwards exchanged for that of S. Girolamo dei Schiavoni. In 1571 he was transferred to the See of Fermo. He was popularly known as the Cardinal di Montalto. During the pontificate of Gregory XIII he withdrew from public affairs, devoting himself to study and to the collection of works of art, as far as his scanty means permitted. During this time he edited the works of St. Ambrose (Rome, 1579-1585) and erected a villa (now Villa Massimi) on the Esquiline. Gregory XIII died on 10 April 1585, and after a conclave of four days Peretti was elected pope by "adoration" on 24 April, 1585. He took the name Sixtus V in memory of Sixtus IV, who had also been a Minorite. The legend that he entered the conclave on crutches, feigning the infirmities of old age, and upon his election exultantly thrust aside his crutches and appeared full of life and vigour has long been exploded; it may, however, have been invented as a symbol of his forced inactivity during the reign of Gregory XIII and the remarkable energy which he displayed during the five years of his pontificate. He was a born ruler and especially suited to stem the tide of disorder and lawlessness which had broken out towards the end of the reign of Gregory XIII. Having obtained the co-operation of the neighbouring states, he exterminated, often with excessive cruelty, the system of brigandage which had reached immense proportions and terrorized the whole of Italy. The number of bandits in and about Rome at the death of Gregory XIII has been variously estimated at from twelve to twenty-seven thousand, and in little more than two years after the accession of Sixtus V the Papal States had become the most secure country in Europe. Of almost equal importance with the extermination of the bandits was, in the opinion of Sixtus V, the rearrangement of the papal finances. At his accession the papal exchequer was empty. Acting on his favourite principle that riches as well as severity are necessary for good government, he used every available means to replenish the state treasury. So successful was he in the accumulation of money that, despite his enormous expenditures for public buildings, he had shortly before his death deposited in the Castello di Sant' Angelo three million scudi in gold and one million six hundred thousand in silver. He did not consider that in the long run so much dead capital withdrawn from circulation was certain to impoverish the country and deal the death-blow to commerce and industry. To obtain such vast sums he economized everywhere, except in works of architecture; increased the number of salable public offices; imposed more taxes and extended the monti, or public loans, that had been instituted by Clement VII. Though extremely economical in other ways, Sixtus V spent immense sums in erection of public works. He built the Lateran Palace; completed the Quirinal; restored the Church of Santa Sabina on the Aventine; rebuilt the Church and Hospice of San Girolamo dei Schiavoni; enlarged and improved the Sapienza; founded the hospice for the poor near the Ponte Sisto; built and richly ornamented the Chapel of the Cradle in the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore; completed the cupola of St. Peter's; raised the obelisks of the Vatican, of Santa Maria Maggiore, of the Lateran, and of Santa Maria del Popolo; restored the columns of Trajan and of Antoninus Pius, placing the statue of St. Peter on the former and that of St. Paul on the latter; erected the Vatican Library with its adjoining printing-office and that wing of the Vatican Palace which is inhabited by the pope; built many magnificent streets; erected various monasteries; and supplied Rome with water, the "Acqua Felice", which he brought to the city over a distance of twenty miles, partly under ground, partly on elevated aqueducts. At Bologna he founded the Collegio Montalto for fifty students from the March of Ancona. Far-reaching were the reforms which Sixtus V introduced in the management of ecclesiastical affairs. On 3 Dec., 1586, he issued the Bull "Postquam verus", fixing the number of cardinals at seventy, namely, six cardinal-bishops, fifty cardinal-priests, and fourteen cardinal-deacons. Before his pontificate, ecclesiastical business was generally discharged by the pope in consistory with the cardinals. There were, indeed, a few permanent cardinalitial congregations, but the sphere of their competency was very limited. In his Bull "Immensa aeterni Dei", of 11 February, 1588, he established fifteen permanent congregations, some of which were concerned with spiritual, others with temporal affairs. They were the Congregations: (1) of the Inquisition; (2) of the Segnatura; (3) for the Establishment of Churches; (4) of Rites and Ceremonies; (5) of the Index of Forbidden Books; (6) of the Council of Trent (7); of the Regulars; (8) of the Bishops; (9) of the Vatican Press; (10) of the Annona, for the provisioning of Rome and the provinces; (11) of the Navy; (12) of the Public Welfare; (13) of the Sapienza; (14) of Roads, Bridges, and Waters; (15) of State Consultations. These congregations lessened the work of the pope, without in any way limiting his authority. The final decision belonged to the pope. In the creation of cardinals Sixtus V was, as a rule, guided by their good qualities. The only suspicion of nepotism with which he might be reproached was giving the purple to his fourteen-year-old grand-nephew Alessandro, who, however did honour to the Sacred College and never wielded an undue influence. In 1588 he issued from the Vatican Press an edition of the Septuagint revised according to a Vatican MS. His edition of the Vulgate, printed shortly before his death, was withdrawn from circulation on account of its many errors, corrected, and reissued in 1592 (see BELLARMINE, ROBERT FRANCIS ROMULUS, VENERABLE). Though a friend of the Jesuits, he objected to some of their rules and especially to the title "Society of Jesus". He was on the point of changing these when death overtook him. A statue which had been erected in his honour on the Capitol during his lifetime was torn down by the rabble immediately upon his death. (For his relations with the various temporal rulers and his attempts to stem the tide of Protestantism, see THE COUNTER-REFORMATION). VON HUBNER, Sixte-Quint (Paris, 1870), tr. JERNINGHAM (London, 1872); BALZANI, Rome under Sixtus V in Cambridge Modern History, III (London, 1905), 422-55; ROBARDI, Sixti V gesta guinquennalia (Rome, 1590); LETI, Vita di Sisto V (Losanna, 1669), tr. FARNEWORTH (London, 1754), unreliable; TEMPESTI, Storia della vita e geste di Sisto V (Rome, 1755); CESARE, Vita di Sisto V (Naples, 1755); LORENTZ, Sixtus V und seine Zeit (Mainz, 1852); DUMESNIL, Hist. de Sixte-Quint (Paris, 1869); CAPRANICA, Papa Sixto, storia del s. XVI (Milan, 1884); GRAZIANI, Sisto V e la riorganizzazione della s. Sede (Rome, 1910); GOZZADINI, Giovanni Pepoli e Sisto V (Bologna, 1879); SEGRETAIN, Sixte-Quint et Henri IV (Paris, 1861); CUGNONI, Memorie autografe di Papa Sisto V in Archivio della Soc. Romana di storia patria (Rome, 1882); BENADDUCI, Sisto documento inedito per la storia di Sisto V (Venice, 1896); ROSSI-SCOTTI, Pompilio Eusebi da Perugia e Sisto papa V (Perugia, 1893); PAOLI, Sisto V e i banditi (Sassari, 1902); HARPER in Amer. Cath. Quarterly Review, III (Philadelphia, 1878), 498-521. MICHAEL OTT Peter Skarga Peter Skarga Theologian and missionary, b. at Grojec, 1536; d. at Cracow, 27 Sept., 1612. He began his education in his native town in 1552; he went to study in Cracow and afterwards in Warsaw. In 1557 he was in Vienna as tutor to the young Castellan, Teczynski; returning thence in 1564, he received Holy orders, and later was nominated canon of Lemberg Cathedral. Here he began to preach his famous sermons, and to convert Protestants. In 1568 he entered the Society of Jesus and went to Rome, where he became penitentiary for the Polish language at St. Peter's. Returning to Poland, he worked in the Jesuit colleges of Pultusk and Wilna, where he converted a multitude of Protestants, Calvinism being at the time prevalent in those parts. To this end he first published some works of controversy; and in 1576, in order to convince the numerous schismatics in Poland, he issued his great treatise "On the Unity of the Church of God", which did much good then, and is even now held in great esteem. It powerfully promoted the cause of the Union. King Stephen Báthori prized Skarga greatly, often profited by his aid and advice, took him on one of his expeditions, and made him rector of the Academy of Wilna, founded in 1578. In 1584 he was sent to Cracow as superior, and founded there the Brotherhood of Mercy and the "Mons pietatis", meanwhile effecting numerous conversions. He was appointed court preacher by Sigismund III in 1588, and for twenty-four years filled this post to the great advantage of the Church and the nation. In 1596 the Ruthenian Church was united with Rome, largely through his efforts. When the nobles, headed by Zebrzydowski, revolted against Sigismund III, Skarga was sent on a mission of conciliation to the rebels, which, however, proved fruitless. Besides the controversial works mentioned, Skarga published a "History of the Church", and "Lives of the Saints" (Wilna, 1579; 25th ed., Lemberg, 1883-84), possibly the most widely read book in Poland. But most important of all are his "Sermons for Sundays and Holidays" (Cracow, 1595) and "Sermons on the Seven Sacraments" (Cracow, 1600), which, besides their glowing eloquence, are profound and instructive. In addition to these are "Sermons on Various Occasions" and the "Sermons Preached to the Diet". These last for inspiration and feeling are the finest productions in the literature of Poland before the Partitions. Nowhere are there found such style, eloquence, and patriotism, with the deepest religious conviction. Skarga occupies a high place in the literature and the history of Poland. His efforts to convert heretics, to restore schismatics to unity, to prevent corruption, and to stem the tide of public and political license, tending even then towards anarchy, were indeed as to this last point unsuccessful; but that was the nation's fault, not his. S. TARNOWSKI Josef Skoda Josef Skoda (Schkoda) Celebrated clinical lecturer and diagnostician and, with Rokitansky, founder of the modern medical school of Vienna, b. at Pilsen in Bohemia, 10 December, 1805; d. at Vienna, 13 June, 1881. Skoda was the son of a locksmith. He attended the gymnasium at Pilsen, entered the University of Vienna in 1825, and received the degree of Doctor of Medicine on 10 July, 1831. He first served in Bohemia as physician during the outbreak of cholera, was assistant physician in the general hospital of Vienna, 1832-38, in 1839 city physician of Vienna for the poor, and on 13 February, 1840, on the recommendation of Dr. Ludwig, Freiherr von Türkheim, chairman of the imperial committee of education, was appointed to the unpaid position of chief physician of the department for consumptives just opened in the general hospital. In 1846, thanks to the energetic measures of Karl Rokitansky, professor of pathological anatomy, he was appointed professor of the medical clinic against the wishes of the rest of the medical faculty. In 1848 he began to lecture in German instead of Latin, being the first professor to adopt this course. On 17 July, 1848, he was elected an active member of the mathematico-physical section of the Academy of Sciences. Early in 1871 he retired from his professorship, and the occasion was celebrated by the students and the population of Vienna by a great torchlight procession in his honour. Rokitansky calls him "a light for those who study, a model for those who strive, and a rock for those who despair". Skoda's benevolent disposition is best shown by the fact that, notwithstanding his large income and known simplicity of life, he left a comparatively small fortune, and in his will bequeathed legacies to a number of benevolent institutions. Skoda's great merit lies in his development of the methods of physical investigation. The discovery of the method of percussion diagnosis made in 1761 by the Viennese physician, Leopold Auenbrugger (1722-1809), had been forgotten, and the knowledge of it was first revived in 1808 by Corvisart (1755-1821), court-physician to Napoleon I. Laennec (1787-1826) and his pupils Piorry and Bouillaud added auscultation to this method. Skoda began his clinical studies in close connexion with pathological anatomy while assistant physician of the hospital, but his superiors failed to understand his course, and in 1837, by way of punishment, transferred him to the ward for the insane, as it was claimed that the patients were annoyed by his investigations, especially by the method of percussion. His first publication, "Über die Perkussion" in the "Medizinische Jahrbücher des k.k. österreichen Kaiserstaates", IX (1836), attracted but little attention. This paper was followed by: "Über den Herzstoss und die durch die Herzbewegungen verursachten Töne und über die Anwendung der Perkussion bei Untersuchung der Organe des Unterleibes", in the same periodical, vols XIII, XIV (1837); "Über Abdominaltyphus und dessen Behandlung mit Alumen crudum", also in the same periodical, vol. XV (1838); "Untersuchungsmethode zur Bestimmung des Zustandes des Herzens", vol. XVIII (1839); "Über Pericarditis in pathologisch-anatomischer und diagnostischer Beziehung", XIX (1839); "Über Piorrys Semiotik und Diagnostik", vol. XVIII (1839); "Über die Diagnose der Herzklappenfehler", vol. XXI (1840). His small but up to now unsurpassed chief work, "Abhandlung über die Perkussion und Auskultation" (Vienna, 1839), has been repeatedly published and translated into foreign languages. It established his universal renown as a diagnostician. In 1841, after a journey for research to Paris, he made a separate division in his department for skin diseases and thus gave the first impulse towards the reorganization of dermatology by Ferdinand Hebra. In 1848 at the request of the ministry of education he drew up a memorial on the reorganization of the study of medicine, and encouraged later by his advice the founding of the present higher administration of the medical school of Vienna. As regards therapeutics the accusation was often made against him that he held to the "Nihilism" of the Vienna School. As a matter of fact his therapeutics were exceedingly simple in contrast to the great variety of remedial agents used at that time, which he regarded as useless, as in his experience many ailments were cured without medicines, merely by suitable medical supervision and proper diet. His high sense of duty as a teacher, the large amount of work he performed as a physician, and the early appearance of organic heart-trouble are probably the reasons that from 1848 he published less and less. The few papers which he wrote from 1850 are to be found in the transactions of the Academy of Sciences and the periodical of the Society of Physicians of Vienna of which he was the honorary president. DRASCHE, Skoda (Vienna, 1881). LEOPOLD SENFELDER Slander Slander Slander is the attributing to another of a fault of which one knows him to be innocent. It contains a twofold malice, that which grows out of damage unjustly done to our neighbor's good name and that of lying as well. Theologians say that this latter guilt considered in itself, in so far as it is an offence against veracity, may not be grievous, but that nevertheless it will frequently be advisable to mention it in confession, in order that the extent and method of reparation may be settled. The important thing to note of slander is that it is a lesion of our neighbor's right to his reputation. Hence moralists hold that it is not specifically distinct from mere detraction. For the purpose of determining the species of this sin, the manner in which the injury is done is negligible. There is, however, this difference between slander and detraction: that, whereas there are circumstances in which we may lawfully expose the misdeeds which another has actually committed, we are never allowed to blacken his name by charging him with what he has not done. A lie is intrinsically evil and can never be justified by any cause or in any circumstances. Slander involves a violation of commutative justice and therefore imposes on its perpetrator the obligation of restitution. First of all, he must undo the injury of the defamation itself. There seems in general to be only one adequate way to do this: he must simply retract his false statement. Moralists say that if he can make full atonement by declaring that he has made a mistake, this will be sufficient; otherwise he must unequivocally take back his untruth, even at the expense of exhibiting himself a liar. In addition he is bound to make compensation to his victim for whatever losses may have been sustained as a result of his malicious imputation. It is supposed that the damage which ensues has been in some measure foreseen by the slanderer. JOSEPH F. DELANY Slavery and Christianity Slavery and Christianity How numerous the slaves were in Roman society when Christianity made its appearance, how hard was their lot, and how the competition of slave labour crushed free labour is notorious. It is the scope of this article to show what Christianity has done for slaves and against slavery, first in the Roman world, next in that society which was the result of the barbarian invasions, and lastly in the modern world. I. THE CHURCH AND ROMAN SLAVERY The first missionaries of the Gospel, men of Jewish origin, came from a country where slavery existed. But it existed in Judea under a form very different from the Roman form. The Mosaic Law was merciful to the slave (Ex., xxi; Lev., xxv; Deut., xv, xxi) and carefully secured his fair wage to the labourer (Deut., xxiv, 15). In Jewish society the slave was not an object of contempt, because labour was not despised as it was elsewhere. No man thought it beneath him to ply a manual trade. These ideas and habits of life the Apostles brought into the new society which so rapidly grew up as the effect of their preaching. As this society included, from the first, faithful of all conditions -- rich and poor, slaves and freemen -- the Apostles were obliged to utter their beliefs as to the social inequalities which so profoundly divided the Roman world. "For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal., iii, 27-28; cf. I Cor., xii, 13). From this principle St. Paul draws no political conclusions. It was not his wish, as it was not in his power, to realize Christian equality either by force or by revolt. Such revolutions are not effected of a sudden. Christianity accepts society as it is, influencing it for its transformation through, and only through, individual souls. What it demands in the first place from masters and from slaves is, to live as brethren -- commanding with equity, without threatening, remembering that God is the master of all - obeying with fear, but without servile flattery, in simplicity of hear, as they would obey Christ (cf. Eph., vi, 9; Col. iii, 22-4; iv, 1). This language was understood by masters and by slaves who became converts to Christianity. But many slaves who were Christians had pagan masters to whom this sentiment of fraternity was unknown, and who sometimes exhibited that cruelty of which moralists and poets so often speak. To such slaves St. Peter points out their duty: to be submissive "not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward", not with a mere inert resignation, but to give a good example and to imitate Christ, Who also suffered unjustly (I Peter, ii, 18, 23-4. In the eyes of the Apostles, a slave's condition, peculiarly wretched, peculiarly exposed to temptations, bears all the more efficacious testimony to the new religion. St. Paul recommends slaves to seek in all things to please their masters, not to contradict them, to do them no wrong, to honour them, to be loyal to them, so as to make the teaching of God Our Saviour shine forth before the eyes of all, and to prevent that name and teaching from being blasphemed (cf. I Tim, vi, 1; Tit., ii, 9, 10). The apostolic writings show how large a place slaves occupied in the Church Nearly all the names of the Christians whom St. Paul salutes in his Epistles to the Romans are servile cognomina: the two groups whom he calls "those of the household of Aristobulus and "those of the household of Narcissus" indicate Christian servitors of those two contemporaries of Nero. His Epistle, written from Rome to the Philippians (iv, 22) bears them greeting from the saints of Caesar's household, i.e. converted slaves of the imperial palace. One fact which, in the Church, relieved the condition of the slave was the absence among Christians of the ancient scorn of labour (Cicero, "De off.", I, xlii; Pro Flacco", xviii; "pro domo", xxxiii; Suetonius, "Claudius, xxii; Seneca, "De beneficiis", xviii; Valerius Maximus, V, ii, 10). Converts to the new religion knew that Jesus had been a carpenter; they saw St. Paul exercise the occupation of a tentmaker (Acts, xviii, 3; I Cor, iv, 12). "Neither did we et any man's bread", said the Apostle, "for nothing, but in labour and in toil we worked night and day, lest we should be chargeable to any you (II Thess., iii, 8; cf. Acts, xx, 33, 34). Such an example, given at a time when those who laboured were accounted "the dregs of the city", and those who did not labour lived on the public bounty, constituted a very efficacious form of preaching. A new sentiment was thereby introduced into the Roman world, while at the same time a formal discipline was being established in the Church. It would have none of those who made a parade of their leisurely curiosity in the Greek and Roman cities (II Thess., iii, 11). It declared that those who do not labour do not deserve to be fed (ibid., 10). A Christian was not permitted to live without an occupation (Didache, xii). Religious equality was the negation of slavery as it was practiced by pagan society. It must have been an exaggeration, no doubt, to say, as one author of the first century said, that "slaves had no religion, or had only foreign religions" (Tacitus, "Annals", XIV, xliv): many were members of funerary collegia under the invocation of Roman divinities (Statutes of the College of Lanuvium, "Corp. Inscr. lat.", XIV, 2112). But in many circumstances this haughty and formalist religion excluded slaves from its functions, which, it was held, their presence would have defiled. (Cicero, "Octavius", xxiv). Absolute religious equality, as proclaimed by Christianity, was therefore a novelty. The Church made no account of the social condition of the faithful. Bond and free received the same sacraments. Clerics of servile origin were numerous (St. Jerome, Ep. lxxxii). The very Chair of St. Peter was occupied by men who had been slaves -- Pius in the second century, Callistus in the third. So complete -- one might almost say, so levelling -- was this Christian equality that St. Paul (I Tim., vi, 2), and, later, St. Ignatius (Polyc., iv), are obliged to admonish the slave and the handmaid not to contemn their masters, "believers like them and sharing in the same benefits". In giving them a place in religious society, the Church restored to slaves the family and marriage. In Roman, law, neither legitimate marriage, nor regular paternity, nor even impediment to the most unnatural unions had existed for the slave (Digest, XXXVIII, viii, i, (sect) 2; X, 10, (sect) 5). That slaves often endeavoured to override this abominable position is touchingly proved by innumerable mortuary inscriptions; but the name of uxor, which the slave woman takes in these inscriptions, is very precarious, for no law protects her honour, and with her there is no adultery (Digest, XLVIII, v, 6; Cod. Justin., IX, ix, 23). In the Church the marriage of slaves is a sacrament; it possesses "the solidity" of one (St. Basil, Ep. cxcix, 42). The Apostolic Constitutions impose upon the master the duty of making his slave contract "a legitimate marriage" (III, iv; VIII, xxxii). St. John Chrysostom declares that slaves have the marital power over their wives and the paternal over their children ("In Ep. ad Ephes.", Hom. xxii, 2). He says that "he who has immoral relations with the wife of a slave is as culpable as he who has the like relations with the wife of the prince: both are adulterers, for it is not the condition of the parties that makes the crime" ("In I Thess.", Hom. v, 2; "In II Thess.", Hom. iii, 2). In the Christian cemeteries there is no difference between the tombs of slaves and those of the free. The inscriptions on pagan sepulchres -- whether the columbarium common to all the servants of one household, or the burial plot of a funerary collegium of slaves or freedmen, or isolated tombs -- always indicate the servile condition. In Christian epitaphs it is hardly ever to be seen ("Bull. di archeol. christiana", 1866, p. 24), though slaves formed a considerable part of the Christian population. Sometimes we find a slave honoured with a more pretentious sepulchre than others of the faithful, like that of Ampliatus in the cemetery of Domitilla ("Bull. di archeol. christ.", 1881, pp. 57-54, and pl. III, IV). This is particularly so in the case of slaves who were martyrs: the ashes of two slaves, Protus and Hyacinthus, burned alive in the Valerian persecution. had been wrapped in a winding-sheet of gold tissue (ibid., 1894, p. 28). Martyrdom eloquently manifests the religious equality of the slave: he displays as much firmness before the menaces of the persecutor as does the free man. Sometimes it is not for the Faith alone that a slave woman dies, but for the faith and chastity equally threatened -- "pro fide et castitate occisa est" ("Acta S. Dulae" in Acta SS., III March, p. 552). Beautiful assertions of this moral freedom are found in the accounts of the martyrdoms of the slaves Ariadne, Blandina, Evelpistus, Potamienna, Felicitas, Sabina, Vitalis, Porphyrus, and many others (see Allard, "Dix leçons sur le martyre", 4th ed., pp. 155-- 64). The Church made the enfranchisement of the slave an act of disinterested charity. Pagan masters usually sold him his liberty for his market value, on receipt of his painfully amassed savings (Cicero, "Philipp. VIII", xi; Seneca "Ep. lxxx"); true Christians gave it to him as an alms. Sometimes the Church redeemed slaves out of its common resources (St. Ignatius, "Polyc.", 4; Apos. Const., IV, iii). Heroic Christians are known to have sold themselves into slavery to deliver slaves (St. Clement, "Cor.", 4; "Vita S. Joannis Eleemosynarii" in Acts SS., Jan., II, p. 506). Many enfranchised all the slaves they had. In pagan antiquity wholesale enfranchisements are frequent, but they never include all the owner's slaves, end they are always by testamentary disposition -- that is when the owner cannot be impoverished by his own bounty, (Justinian, "Inst.", I, vii; "Cod. Just.", VII, iii, 1). Only Christians enfranchised all their slaves in the owner's lifetime, thus effectually despoiling themselves a considerable part of their fortune (see Allard, "Les esclaves chrétiens", 4th ed., p. 338). At the beginning of the fifth century, a Roman millionaire, St. Melania, gratuitously granted liberty to so many thousand of slaves that her biographer declares himself unable to give their exact number (Vita S. Melaniae, xxxiv). Palladius mentions eight thousand slaves freed (Hist. Lausiaca, cxix), which, taking the average price of a slave as about $100, would represent a value of $800,000 [1913 dollars]. But Palladius wrote before 406, which was long before Melania had completely exhausted her immense fortune in acts of liberality of all kinds (Rampolla, "S. Melania Giuniore", 1905, p. 221). Primitive Christianity did not attack slavery directly; but it acted as though slavery did not exist. By inspiring the best of its children with this heroic charity, examples of which have been given above, it remotely prepared the way for the abolition of slavery. To reproach the Church of the first ages with not having condemned slavery in principle, and with having tolerated it in fact, is to blame it for not having let loose a frightful revolution, in which, perhaps, all civilization would have perished with Roman society. But to say, with Ciccotti (Il tramonto della schiavitù, Fr. tr., 1910, pp. 18, 20), that primitive Christianity had not even "an embryonic vision" of a society in which there should be no slavery, to say that the Fathers of the Church did not feel "the horror of slavery", is to display either strange ignorance or singular unfairness. In St. Gregory of Nyssa (In Ecclesiastem, hom. iv) the most energetic and absolute reprobation of slavery may be found; and again in numerous passages of St. John Chrysostom's discourse we have the picture of a society without slaves - a society composed only of free workers, an ideal portrait of which he traces with the most eloquent insistence (see the texts cited in Allard, "Les esclaves chrétiens", p. 416-23). II. THE CHURCH AND SLAVERY AFTER THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the legislative movement which took place during the same period in regard to slaves. From Augustus to Constantine statutes and jurisprudence tended to afford them greater protection against ill- treatment and to facilitate enfranchisement. Under the Christian emperors this tendency, in spite of relapses at certain points, became daily more marked, and ended, in the sixth century, in Justinian's very liberal legislation (see Wallon, "Hist. de l'esclavage dans l'antiquité", III, ii and x). Although the civil law on slavery still lagged behind the demands of Christianity ("The laws of Caesar are one thing, the laws of Christ another", St. Jerome writes in "Ep. lxxvii"), nevertheless very great progress had been made. It continued in the Eastern Empire (laws of Basil the Macedonian, of Leo the Wise, of Constantine Porphyrogenitus), but in the West it was abruptly checked by the barbarian invasions. Those invasions were calamitous for the slaves, increasing their numbers which had began to diminish, and subjecting them to legislation and to customs much harder than those which obtained under the Roman law of the period (see Allard, "Les origines du servage" in "Rev. des questions historiques", April, 1911. Here again the Church intervened. It did so in three ways: redeeming slaves; legislating for their benefit in its councils; setting an example of kind treatment. Documents of the fifth to the seventh century are full of instances of captives carried off from conquered cities by the barbarians and doomed to slavery, whom bishops, priests, and monks, and pious laymen redeemed. Redeemed captives were sometimes sent back in thousands to their own country (ibid., p. 393-7, and Lesne, "Hist de la propriété ecclésiastique en France", 1910, pp. 357-69). The Churches of Gaul, Spain, Britain, and Italy were incessantly busy, in numerous councils, with the affairs of slaves; protection of the maltreated slave who has taken refuge in a church (Councils of Orléans, 511, 538, 549; Council of Epone, 517); those manumitted in ecclesiis, but also those freed by any other process (Council of Arles, 452; of Agde, 506; of Orléans, 549; of Mâcon, 585; of Toledo, 589, 633; of Paris, 615); validity of marriage contracted with full knowledge of the circumstances between free persons and slaves ((Councils of Verberie, 752, of Compiègne, 759); rest for slaves on Sundays and feast days (Council of Auxerrre, 578 or 585; of Châlon-sur-Saône, middle of the seventh century; of Rouen, 650; of Wessex, 691; of Berghamsted, 697); prohibition of Jews to possess Christian slaves (Council of Orléans, 541; of Mâcon, 581; of Clichy, 625; of Toledo, 589, 633, 656); suppression of traffic in slaves by forbidding their sale outside the kingdom (Council of Châlon-sur-Saône, between 644 and 650); prohibition against reducing a free man to slavery (Council of Clichy, 625). Less liberal in this respect than Justinian (Novella cxxiii, 17), who made tacit consent a sufficient condition, the Western discipline does not permit a slave to be raised to the priesthood without the formal consent of his master; nevertheless the councils held at Orléans in 511, 538, 549, while imposing canonical penalties upon the bishop who exceeded his authority in this matter, declare such an ordination to be valid. A council held at Rome in 595 under the presidency of St. Gregory the Great permits the slave to become a monk without any consent, express or tacit, of his master. At this period the Church found itself becoming a great proprietor. Barbarian converts endowed it largely with real property. As these estates were furnished with serfs attached to the cultivation of the soil, the Church became by force of circumstances a proprietor of human beings, for whom, in these troublous times, the relation was a great blessing. The laws of the barbarians, amended through Christian influence, gave ecclesiastical serfs a privileged position: their rents were fixed; ordinarily, they were bound to give the proprietor half of their labour or half of its products, the remainder being left to them (Lex Alemannorum, xxii; Lex Bajuvariorum, I, xiv, 6). A council of the sixth century (Eauze, 551) enjoins upon bishops that they must exact of their serfs a lighter service than that performed by the serfs of lay proprietors, and must remit to them one-fourth of their rents. Another advantage of ecclesiastical serfs was the permanency of their position. A Roman law of the middle of the fourth century (Cod. Just., XI, xlvii, 2) had forbidden rural slaves to be removed from the lands to which they belonged; this was the origin of serfdom, a much better condition than slavery properly so called. But the barbarians virtually suppressed this beneficent law (Gregory of Tours, "Hist. Franc.", VI, 45); it was even formally abrogated among the Goths of Italy by the edict of Theodoric (sect. 142). Nevertheless, as an exceptional privilege, it remained in force for the serfs of the Church, who, like the Church itself remained under Roman law (Lex Burgondionum, LVIII, i; Louis I, "Add. ad legem Langobard.", III, i). They shared besides, the inalienability of all ecclesiastical property which had been established by councils (Rome, 50; Orléans, 511, 538; Epone, 517; Clichy, 625; Toledo, 589); they were sheltered from the exactions of the royal officers by the immunity granted to almost all church lands (Kroell, "L'immunité franque", 19110); thus their position was generally envied (Flodoard, "Hist eccl. Remensis", I, xiv), and when the royal liberality assigned to a church a portion of land out of the state property, the serfs who cultivated were loud in their expression of joy (Vita S. Eligii, I, xv). It has been asserted that the ecclesiastical serfs were less fortunately situated because the inalienability of church property prevented their being enfranchised. But this is inexact. St. Gregory the Great enfranchised serfs of the Roman Church (Ep. vi, 12), and there is frequent discussion in the councils in regard to ecclesiastical freedmen. The Council of Agde (506) gives the bishop the right to enfranchise those serfs "who shall have deserved it" and to leave them a small patrimony. A Council of Orléans (541) declares that even if the bishop has dissipated the property of his church, the serfs whom he has freed in reasonable number (numero competenti) are to remain free. A Merovingian formula shows a bishop enfranchising one-tenth of his serfs (Formulae Biturgenses, viii). The Spanish councils imposed greater restrictions, recognizing the right of a bishop to enfranchise the serfs of his church on condition of his indemnifying it out of his own private property (Council of Seville, 590; of Toledo, 633; of Merida, 666). But they made it obligatory to enfranchise the serf in whom a serious vocation was discerned (Council of Saragossa, 593). An English council (Celchyte, 816) orders that at the death of a bishop all the other bishops and all the abbots shall enfranchise three slaves each for the repose of his soul. This last clause shows again the mistake of saying that the monks had not the right of manumission. The canon of the Council of Epone (517) which forbids abbots to enfranchise their serfs was enacted in order that the monks might not be left to work without assistance and has been taken too literally. It is inspired not only by agricultural prudence, but also by the consideration that the serfs belong to the community of monks, and not to the abbot individually. Moreover, the rule of St. Ferréol (sixth century) permits the abbot to free serfs with the consent of the monks, or without their consent, if, in the latter case, he replaces at his own expense those he has enfranchised. The statement that ecclesiastical freedmen were not as free as the freedmen of lay proprietors will not bear examination in the light of facts, which shows the situation of the two classes to have been identical, except that the freedman of the Church earned a higher wergheld than a lay freedman, and therefore his life was better protected. The "Polyptych of Irminon", a detailed description of the abbey lands of Saint-Germain-des-Prés shows that in the ninth century the serfs of that domain were not numerous and led in every way the life of free peasants. III. THE CHURCH AND MODERN SLAVERY In the Middle Ages slavery, properly so called, no longer existed in Christian countries; it had been replaced by serfdom, an intermediate condition in which a man enjoyed all his personal rights except the right to leave the land he cultivated and the right to freely dispose of his property. Serfdom soon disappeared in Catholic countries, to last longer only where the Protestant Reformation prevailed. But while serfdom was becoming extinct, the course of events was bringing to pass a temporary revival of slavery. As a consequence of the wars against the Mussulmans and the commerce maintained with the East, the European countries bordering on the Mediterranean, particularly Spain and Italy, once more had slaves -- Turkish prisoners and also, unfortunately, captives imported by conscienceless traders. Though these slaves were generally well-treated, and set at liberty if they asked for baptism, this revival of slavery, lasting until the seventeenth century, is a blot on Christian civilization. But the number of these slaves was always very small in comparison with that of the Christian captives reduced to slavery in Mussulman countries, particularly in the Barbary states from Tripoli to the Atlantic coast of Morocco. These captives were cruelly treated and were in constant danger of losing their faith. Many actually did deny their faith, or, at least, were driven by despair to abandon all religion and all morality. Religious orders were founded to succour and redeem them. The Trinitarians, founded in 1198 by St. John of Matha and St. Felix of Valois, established hospitals for slaves at Algiers and Tunis in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; and from its foundation until the year 1787 it redeemed 900,000 slaves. The Order of Our Lady of Ransom (Mercedarians), founded in the thirteenth century by St. Peter Nolasco, and established more especially in France and Spain, redeemed 490,736 slaves between the years 1218 and 1632. To the three regular vows its founder had added a fourth, "To become a hostage in the hands of the infidels, if that is necessary for the deliverance of Christ's faithful." Many Mercedarians kept this vow even to martyrdom. Another order undertook not only to redeem captives, but also to give them spiritual and material assistance. St. Vincent of Paul had been a slave at Algiers in 1605, and had witnessed the sufferings and perils of Christian slaves. At the request of Louis XIV, he sent them, in 1642, priests of the congregation which he had founded. Many of these priests, indeed, were invested with consular functions at Tunis and at Algiers. From 1642 to 1660 they redeemed about 1200 slaves at an expense of about 1,200,000 livres. But their greatest achievements were in teaching the Catechism and converting thousands, and in preparing many of the captives to suffer the most cruel martyrdom rather than deny the Faith. As a Protestant historian has recently said, none of the expeditions sent against the Barbary States by the Powers of Europe, or even America, equalled "the moral effect produced by the ministry of consolation, and abnegation, going even to the sacrifice of liberty and life, which was exercised by the humble sons of St. John of Matha, St. Peter Nolasco, and St. Vincent Of Paul" (Bonet-Maury, "France, christianisme et civilisation", 1907, p. 142). A second revival of slavery took place after the discovery of the New World by the Spaniards in 1492. To give the history of it would be to exceed the limits of this article. It will be sufficient to recall the efforts of Las Casas in behalf of the aborigines of America and the protestations of popes against the enslavement of those aborigines and the traffic in negro slaves. England, France, Portugal, and Spain, all participated in this nefarious traffic. England only made amends for its transgressions when, in 1815, it took the initiative in the suppression of the slave trade. In 1871 a writer had the temerity to assert that the Papacy had not its mind to condemn slavery" (Ernest Havet, "Le christianisme et ses origines", I, p. xxi). He forgot that, in 1462, Pius II declared slavery to be "a great crime" (magnum scelus); that, in 1537, Paul III forbade the enslavement of the Indians; that Urban VIII forbade it in 1639, and Benedict XIV in 1741; that Pius VII demanded of the Congress of Vienna, in 1815, the suppression of the slave trade and Gregory XVI condemned it in 1839; that, in the Bull of Canonization of the Jesuit Peter Claver, one of the most illustrious adversaries of slavery, Pius IX branded the "supreme villainy" (summum nefas) of the slave traders. Everyone knows of the beautiful letter which Leo XIII, in 1888, addressed to the Brazilian bishops, exhorting them to banish from their country the remnants of slavery -- a letter to which the bishops responded with their most energetic efforts, and some generous slave-owners by freeing their slaves in a body, as in the first ages of the Church. In our own times the slave trade still continued to devastate Africa, no longer for the profit of Christian states, from which all slavery had disappeared, but for the Mussulman countries. But as European penetrations progresses in Africa, the missionaries, who are always its precursors -- Fathers of the Holy Ghost, Oblates, White Fathers, Franciscans, Jesuits, Priests of the Mission of Lyons -- labour in the Sudan, Guinea, on the Gabun, in the region of the Great Lakes, redeeming slaves and establishing "liberty villages." At the head of this movement appear two men: Cardinal Lavigerie, who in 1888 founded the Société Antiesclavagiste and in 1889 promoted the Brussels conference; Leo XIII, who encouraged Lavigerie in all his projects, and, in 1890, by an Encyclical once more condemning the slave-traders and "the accursed pest of servitude", ordered an annual collection to be made in all Catholic churches for the benefit of the anti-slavery work. Some modern writers, mostly of the Socialist School -- Karl Marx, Engel, Ciccotti, and, in a measure, Seligman -- attribute the now almost complete disappearance of slavery to the evolution of interests and to economic causes only. The foregoing exposition of the subject is an answer to their materialistic conception of history, as showing that, if not the only, at least the principal, cause of that disappearance is Christianity acting through the authority of its teaching and the influence of its charity. PAUL ALLARD Ethical Aspect of Slavery Ethical Aspect of Slavery In Greek and Roman civilization slavery on an extensive scale formed an essential element of the social structure; and consequently the ethical speculators, no less than the practical statesmen, regarded it as a just and indispensable institution. The Greek, however, assumed that the slave population should be recruited normally only from the barbarian or lower races. The Roman laws, in the heyday of the empire, treated the slave as a mere chattel. The master possessed over him the power of life and death; the slave could not contract a legal marriage, or any other kind of contract; in fact he possessed no civil rights; in the eyes of the law he was not a "person". Nevertheless the settlement of natural justice asserted itself sufficiently to condemn, or at least to disapprove, the conduct of masters who treated their slaves with signal inhumanity. Christianity found slavery in possession throughout the Roman world; and when Christianity obtained power it could not and did not attempt summarily to abolish the institution. From the beginning, however, as is shown elsewhere in this article, the Church exerted a steady powerful pressure for the immediate amelioration of the condition of the individual slave, and for the ultimate abolition of a system which, even in its mildest form, could with difficulty be reconciled with the spirit of the Gospel and the doctrine that all men are brothers in that Divine sonship which knows no distinction of bond and free. From the beginning the Christian moralist did not condemn slavery as in se, or essentially, against the natural law or natural justice. The fact that slavery, tempered with many humane restrictions, was permitted under the Mosaic law would have sufficed to prevent the institution form being condemned by Christian teachers as absolutely immoral. They, following the example of St. Paul, implicitly accept slavery as not in itself incompatible with the Christian Law. The apostle counsels slaves to obey their masters, and to bear with their condition patiently. This estimate of slavery continued to prevail till it became fixed in the systematized ethical teaching of the schools; and so it remained without any conspicuous modification till towards the end of the eighteenth century. We may take as representative de Lugo's statement of the chief argument offered in proof of the thesis that slavery, apart from all abuses, is not in itself contrary to the natural law. Slavery consists in this, that a man is obliged, for his whole life, to devote his labour and services to a master. Now as anybody may justly bind himself, for the sake of some anticipated reward, to give his entire services to a master for a year, and he would in justice be bound to fulfil this contract, why may not he bind himself in like manner for a longer period, even for his entire lifetime, an obligation which would constitute slavery? (De Justitia et Jure, disp. VI, sec. 2. no. 14.) It must be observed that the defence of what may be termed theoretical slavery was by no means intended to be a justification of slavery as it existed historically, with all its attendant, and almost inevitably attendant, abuses, disregarding the natural rights of the slave and entailing pernicious consequences on the character of the slave-holding class, as well as on society in general. Concurrently with the affirmation that slavery is not against the natural law, the moralists specify what are the natural inviolable rights of the slave, and the corresponding duties of the owner. The gist of this teaching is summarized by Cardinal Gerdil (1718-1802): Slavery is not to be understood as conferring on one man the same power over another that men have over cattle. Wherefore they erred who in former times refused to include slaves among persons; and believed that however barbarously the master treated his slave he did not viol;ate any right of the slave. For slavery does not abolish the natural equality of men: hence by slavery one man is understood to become subject to the dominion of another to the extent that the master has a perpetual right to all those services which one man may justly perform for another; and subject to the condition that the master shall take due care of his slave and treat him humanely (Comp. Instit. Civil., L, vii). The master was judged to sin against justice if he treated his slave cruelly, if he overloaded him with labour, deprived him of adequate food and clothing, or if he separated husband from wife, or the mother from her young children. It may be said that the approved ethical view of slavery was that while, religiously speaking, it could not be condemned as against the natural law, and had on its side the jus gentium, it was looked upon with disfavour as at best merely tolerable, and when judged by its consequences, a positive evil. The later moralists, that is to say, broadly speaking, those who have written since the end of the eighteenth century, though in fundamental agreement with their predecessors, have somewhat shifted the perspective. In possession of the bad historical record of slavery and familiar with a Christian structure of society from which slavery had been eliminated, these later moralists emphasize more than did the older ones the reasons for condemning slavery; and they lay less stress on those in its favour. While they admit that it is not, theoretically speaking at least, contrary to the natural law, they hold that it is hardly compatible with the dignity of personality, and is to be condemned as immoral on account of the evil consequences it almost inevitably leads to. It is but little in keeping with human dignity that one man should so far be deprived of his liberty as to be perpetually subject to the will of a master in everything that concerns his external life; that he should be compelled to spend his entire labour for the benefit of another and receive in return only a bare subsistence. This condition of degradation is aggravated by the fact that the slave is, generally, deprived of all means of intellectual development for himself or for his children. This life almost inevitably leads to the destruction of a proper sense of self-respect, blunts the intellectual faculties, weakens the sense of responsibility, and results in a degraded moral standard. On the other hand, the exercise of the slave-master's power, too seldom sufficiently restrained by a sense of justice or Christian feeling, tends to develop arrogance, pride, and a tyrannical disposition, which in the long run comes to treat the slave as a being with no rights at all. Besides, as history amply proves, the presence of a slave population breeds a vast amount of sexual immorality among the slave-owning class, and, to borrow a phrase of Lecky, tends to cast a stigma on all labour and to degrade and impoverish the free poor. Even granting that slavery, when attended with a due regard for the rights of the slave, is not in itself intrinsically wrong, there still remains the important question of the titles by which a master can justly own a slave. The least debatable one, voluntary acceptance of slavery, we have already noticed. Another one that was looked upon as legitimate was purchase. Although it is against natural justice to treat a person as a mere commodity or thing of commerce, nevertheless the labour of a man for his whole lifetime is something that may be lawfully bought and sold. Owing to the exalted notion that prevailed in earlier times about the patria potestas, a father was granted the right to sell his son into slavery, if he could not otherwise relieve his own dire distress. But the theologians held that if he should afterwards be able to do so, the father was bound to redeem the slave, and the master the was bound to set him free if anybody offered to repay him the price he had paid. To sell old or worn-out slaves to anybody who was likely to prove a cruel master, to separate by sale husband and wife, or a mother and her little children, was looked upon as wrong and forbidden. Another title was war. If a man forfeited his life so that he could be justly put to death, this punishment might be committed into the mitigated penalty of slavery, or penal servitude for life. On the same principle that slavery is a lesser evil than death, captives taken in war, who, according to the ethical ideas of the jus gentium, might lawfully be put to death by the victors, were instead reduced to slavery. Whatever justification this practice may have had in the jus gentium of former ages, none could be found for it now. When slavery prevailed as part of the social organization and the slaves were ranked as property, it seemed not unreasonable that the old juridical maxim, Partus sequitur ventrem, should be accepted as peremptorily settling the status of children born in slavery. But it would be difficult to find any justification for this title in the natural law, except on the theory that the institution of slavery was, in certain conditions, necessary to the permanence of the social organization. An insufficient reason frequently offered in defence of it was that the master acquired a right to the children as compensation for the expense he incurred in their support, which could not be provided by the mother who possessed nothing of her own. Nor is there much cogency in the other plea, i.e. that a person born in slavery was presumed to consent tacitly to remaining in that condition, as there was no way open to him to enter any other. It is unnecessary to observe that the practice of capturing savages or barbarians for the purpose of making slaves of them has always been condemned as a heinous offence against justice, and no just title could be created by this procedure. Was it lawful for owners to retain in slavery the descendants of those who had been made slaves in this unjust way? The last conspicuous Catholic moralist who posed this question when it was not merely a theoretical one, Kenrick, resolves it in the affirmative on the ground that lapse of time remedies the original defect in titles when the stability of society and the avoidance of grave disturbances demand it. Notes See ST. THOMAS, Summa Theologica I-II:94:3, ad 2um; II-II:57:3, ad 2um; II-II:57:4, ad 2um. JAMES J. FOX Slaves (Dene Indians) Slaves (Déné "Men"). A tribe of the great Déné family of American Indians, so called apparently from the fact that the Crees drove it back to its original northern haunts. Its present habitat is the forests that lie to the west of Great Slave Lake, from Hay River inclusive. The Slaves are divided into five main bands: those of Hay River, Trout Lake, Horn Mountain, the forks of the Mackenzie, and Fort Norman. Their total population is about 1100. They are for the most part a people of unprepossessing appearance. Their morals were not formerly of the best, but since the advent of Catholic missionaries they have considerably improved. Many of them have discarded the tepees of old for more or less comfortable log houses. Yet the religious instinct is not so strongly developed in them as with most of their congeners in the North. They were not so eager to receive the Catholic missionaries, and when the first Protestant ministers arrived among them, the liberalities of the strangers had more effect on them than the other northern Dénés. To-day perhaps one-twelfth of the whole tribe has embraced Protestantism, the remainder being Catholics. The spiritual wants of the latter are attended to from the missions of St. Joseph on the Great Slave Lake, Ste. Anne, Hay River, and Providence, Mackenzie. A.G. MORICE Slavonic Language and Liturgy Slavonic Language and Liturgy Although the Latin holds the chief place among the liturgical languages in which the Mass is celebrated and the praise of God recited in the Divine Offices, yet the Slavonic language comes next to it among the languages widely used throughout the world in the liturgy of the Church. Unlike the Greek or the Latin languages, each of which may be said to be representative of a single rite, it is dedicated to both the Greek and the Roman rites. Its use, however, is far better known throughout Europe as an expression of the Greek Rite; for it is used amongst the various Slavic nationalities of the Byzantine Rite, whether Catholic or Orthodox, and in that form is spread among 115,000,000 people; but it is also used in the Roman Rite along the eastern shores of the Adriatic Sea in Dalmatia and in the lower part of Croatia among the 100,000 Catholics there. Whilst the Greek language is the norm and the original of the Byzantine or Greek Rite, its actual use as a church language is limited to a comparatively small number, reckoning by population. The liturgy and offices of the Byzantine Church were translated from the Greek into what is now Old Slavonic (or Church Slavonic) by Sts. Cyril and Methodius about the year 866 and the period immediately following. St. Cyril is credited with having invented or adapted a special alphabet which now bears his name (Cyrillic) in order to express the sounds of the Slavonic language, as spoken by the Bulgars and Moravians of his day. Later on St. Methodius translated the entire Bible into Slavonic and his disciples afterwards added other works of the Greek saints and the canon law. These two brother saints always celebrated Mass and administered the sacraments in the Slavonic language. News of their successful missionary work among the pagan Slavs was carried to Rome along with complaints against them for celebrating the rites of the Church in the heathen vernacular. In 868 Saints Cyril and Methodius were summoned to Rome by Nicholas I, but arriving there after his death they were heartily received by his successor Adrian II, who approved of their Slavonic version of the liturgy. St. Cyril died in Rome in 869 and is buried in the Church of San Clemente. St. Methodius was afterwards consecrated Archbishop of Moravia and Pannonia and returned thither to his missionary work. Later on he was again accused of using the heathen Slavonic language in the celebration of the Mass and in the sacraments. It was a popular idea then, that as there had been three languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, inscribed over our Lord on the cross, it would be sacrilegious to use any other language in the service of the Church. St.Methodius appealed to the pope and in 879 he was again summoned to Rome, before John VIII, who after hearing the matter sanctioned the use of the Slavonic language in the Mass and the offices of the Church, saying among other things: We rightly praise the Slavonic letters invented by Cyril in which praises to God are set forth, and we order that the glories and deeds of Christ our Lord be told in that same language. Nor is it in anywise opposed to wholesome doctrine and faith to say Mass in that same Slavonic language (Nec sanæ fidei vel doctrinæ aliquid obstat missam in eadem slavonica lingua canere), or to chant the holy gospels or divine lessons from the Old and New Testaments duly translated and interpreted therein, or the other parts of the divine office: for He who created the three principal languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, also made the others for His praise and glory (Boczek, Codex, tom. I, pp. 43-44). From that time onward the Slavonic tongue was firmly fixed as a liturgical language of the Church, and was used wherever the Slavic tribes were converted to Christianity under the influence of monks and missionaries of the Greek Rite. The Cyrillic letters used in writing it are adaptations of the uncial Greek alphabet, with the addition of a number of new letters to express sounds not found in the greek language. All Church books in Russia, Servia, Bulgaria, or Austro-Hungary (whether used in the Greek Catholic or the Greek Orthodox Churches) are printed in the old Cyrillic alphabet and in the ancient Slavonic tongue. But even before St. Cyril invented his alphabet for the Slavonic language there existed certain runes or native characters in which the southern dialect of the language was committed to writing. There is a tradition, alluded to by Innocent XI, that they were invented by St. Jerome as early as the fourth century; Jagic however thinks that they were really the original letters invented by St. Cyril and afterwards abandoned in favour of an imitation of Greek characters by his disciples and successors. This older alphabet, which still survives, is called the Glagolitic (from glagolati, to speak, because the rude tribesmen imagined that the letters spoke to the reader and told him what to say), and was used by the southern Slavic tribes and now exists along the Adriatic highlands. (See GLAGOLITIC.) The Slavonic which is written in the Glagolitic characters is also the ancient language, but it differs considerably from the Slavonic written in the Cyrillic letters. In fact it may be roughly compared to the difference between the Gaelic of Ireland and the Gaelic of Scotland. The Roman Mass was translated into this Slavonic shortly after the Greek liturgy had been translated by Sts. Cyril and Methodius, so that in the course of time among the Slavic peoples the southern Slavonic written in Glagolitic letters became the language of the Roman Rite, while the northern Slavonic written in Cyrillic letters was the language of the Greek Rite. The prevailing use of the Latin language and the adoption of the Roman alphabet by many Slavic nationalities caused the use of the Glagolitic to diminish and Latin to gradually take its place. The northern Slavic peoples, like the Bohemians, Poles and Slovaks, who were converted by Latin missionaries, used the Latin in their rite from the very first. At present the Glagolitic is only used in Dalmatia and Croatia. Urban VIII in 1631 definitively settled the use of the Glagolitic-Slavonic missal and office-books in the Roman Rite, and laid down rules where the clergy of each language came in contact with each other in regard to church services. Leo XIII published two editions of the Glagoltic Missal, from one of which the illustration on page 45 is taken. The liturgy used in the Slavonic language, whether of Greek or Roman Rite, offers no peculiarities differing from the original Greek or Latin sources. The Ruthenians have introduced an occasional minor modification (see RUTHENIAN RITE), but the Orthodox Russians, Bulgarians, and Servians substantially follow he Byzantine liturgy and offices in the Slavonic version. The Glagolitic Missal, Breviary, and ritual follow closely the Roman liturgical books, and the latest editions contain the new offices authorized by the Roman congregations. The casual observer could not distinguish the Slavonic priest from the Latin priest when celebrating Mass or other services, except by hearing the language as pronounced aloud. ANDREW SHIPMAN The Slavs The Slavs I. NAME A. Slavs At present the customary name for all the Slavonic races is Slav. This name did not appear in history until a late period, but it has superseded all others. The general opinion is that it appeared for the first time in written documents in the sixth century of the Christian era. However, before this the Alexandrian scholar Ptolemy (about A.D. 100-178) mentioned in his work, " Geographike hyphegesis", a tribe called Stavani (Stavanoi) which was said to live in European Sarmatia between the Lithuanian tribes of the Galindae and the Sudeni and the Sarmatic tribe of the Alans. He also mentioned another tribe, Soubenoi, which he assigned to Asiatic Sarmatia on the other side of the Alani. According to Safarik these two statements refer to the same Slavonic people. Ptolemy got his information from two sources; the orthography of the copies he had was poor and consequently he believed there were two tribes to which it was necessary to assign separate localities. In reality the second name refers very probably to the ancestors of the present Slavs, as does the first name also though with less certainty. The Slavonic combination of consonants sl was changed in Greek orthography into stl, sthl, or skl. This theory was accepted by many scholars before Safarik, as Lomonosov, Schlözer, Tatistcheff, J. Thunmann, who in 1774 published a dissertation on the subject. It was first advanced probably in 1679 by Hartknoch who was supported in modern times by many scholars. Apart from the mention by Ptolemy, the expression Slavs is not found until the sixth century. The opinion once held by some German and many Slavonic scholars that the names Suevi and Slav were the same and that these two peoples were identical, although the Suevi were a branch of the Germans and the ancestors of the present Swabians, must be absolutely rejected. Scattered names found in old inscriptions and old charters that are similar in sound to the word Slav must also be excluded in this investigation. After the reference by Ptolemy the Slavs are first spoken of by Pseudo-Caesarios of Nazianzum, whose work appeared at the beginning of the sixth century; in the middle of the sixth century Jordanis and Procopius gave fuller accounts of them. Even in the earliest sources the name appears in two forms. The old Slavonic authorities give: Slovene (plural from the singular Slovenin), the country is called Slovensko, the language slovenesk jazyk, the people slovensk narod. The Greeks wrote Soubenoi, but the writers of the sixth century used the terms: Sklabenoi, Sklauenoi, Sklabinoi, Sklauinoi. The Romans used the terms: Sclaueni, Sclauini, Sclauenia, Sclauinia. Later authors employ the expressions Sthlabenoi, Sthlabinoi, while the Romans wrote: Sthlaueni, Sthlauini. In the "Life of St. Clement" the expression Sthlabenoi occurs; later writers use such terms as Esklabinoi, Asklabinoi, Sklabinioi, Sklauenioi. The adjectives are sclaviniscus, sclavaniscus, sclavinicus, sclauanicus. At the same time shorter forms are also to be found, as: sklaboi, sthlaboi, sclavi, schlavi, sclavania, later also slavi. In addition appear as scattered forms: Sclauani, Sclauones (Sklabonoi, Esthlabesianoi, Ethlabogeneis). The Armenian Moises of Choren was acquainted with the term Sklavajin: the chronicler Michael the Syrian used the expression Sglau or Sglou; the Arabians adopted the expression Sclav, but because it could not be brought into harmony with their phonetical laws they changed it into Saklab, Sakalib, and later also to Slavije, Slavijun. The anonymous Persian geography of the tenth century used the term Seljabe. Various explanations of the name have been suggested, the theory depending upon whether the longer or shorter form has been taken as the basis and upon acceptance of the vowel o or a as the original root vowel. From the thirteenth century until Safarik the shorter form Slav was always regarded as the original expression, and the name of the Slavs was traced from the word Slava (honour, fame), consequently it signified the same as gloriosi (ainetoi). However, as early as the fourteenth century and later the name Slav was at times referred to the longer form Slovenin with o as the root vowel, and this longer form was traced to the word Slovo (word, speech), Slavs signifying, consequently, "the talking ones," verbosi, veraces, homoglottoi, consequently it has been the accepted theory up to the present time. Other elucidations of the name Slav, as clovek (man), skala (rock), selo (colony), slati (to send), solovej (nightingale), scarcely merit mention. There is much more reason in another objection that Slavonic philologists have made to the derivation of the word Slav from slovo (word). The ending en or an of the form Slovenin indicates derivation from a topographical designation. Dobrowsky perceived this difficulty and therefore invented the topographical name Slovy, which was to be derived from slovo. With some reservation Safarik also gave a geographical interpretation. He did not, however, accept the purely imaginary locality Slovy but connected the word Slovenin with the Lithuanian Salava, Lettish Sala, from which is derived the Polish zulawa, signifying island, a dry spot in a swampy region. According to this interpretation the word Slavs would mean the inhabitants of an island, or inhabitants of a marshy region. The German scholar Grimm maintained the identity of the Slavs with Suevi and derived the name from sloba, svoba (freedom). The most probable explanation is that deriving the name from slovo (word); this is supported by the Slavonic name for the Germans Nemci (the dumb). The Slavs called themselves Slovani, that is, "the speaking ones", those who know words, while they called their neighbours the Germans, "the dumb", that is, those who do not know words. During the long period of war between the Germans and Slavs, which lasted until the tenth century, the Slavonic territories in the north and southeast furnished the Germans large numbers of slaves. The Venetian and other Italian cities on the coast took numerous Slavonic captives from the opposite side of the Adriatic whom they resold to other places. The Slavs frequently shared in the seizure and export of their countrymen as slaves. The Naretani, a piratical Slavonic tribe living in the present district of Southern Dalmatia, were especially notorious for their slave-trade. Russian princes exported large numbers of slaves from their country. The result is that the name Slav has given the word slave to the peoples of Western Europe. The question still remains to be answered whether the expression Slavs indicated originally all Slavonic tribes or only one or a few of them. The reference to them in Ptolemy shows that the word then meant only a single tribe. Ptolemy called the Slavs as a whole the Venedai and says they are "the greatest nation" (megiston ethnos). The Byzantines of the sixth century thought only of the southern Slavs and incidentally also of the Russians, who lived on the boundaries of the Eastern Empire. With them the expression Slavs meant only the southern Slavs; they called the Russians Antae, and distinguished sharply between the two groups of tribes. In one place (Get., 34, 35) Jordanis divides all Slavs into three groups: Veneti, Slavs, and Antae; this would correspond to the present division of western, southern, and eastern Slavs. However, this mention appears to be an arbitrary combination. In another passage he designated the eastern Slavs by the name Veneti. Probably he had found the expression Veneti in old writers and had learned personally the names Slavs and Antae; in this way arose his triple division. All the seventh-century authorities call all Slavonic tribes, both southern Slavs and western Slavs, that belonged to the kingdom of Prince Samo, simply Slavs; Samo is called the "ruler of the Slavs", but his peoples are called "the Slavs named Vindi" (Sclavi cognomento Winadi). In the eighth and ninth centuries the Czechs and Slavs of the Elbe were generally called Slavs, but also at times Wens, by the German and Roman chroniclers. In the same way all authorities of the era of the Apostles to the Slavs, Cyril and Methodius, give the name Slav without any distinction both to the southern Slavs, to which branch both missionaries belonged, and to the western Slavs, among whom they laboured. As regards the eastern Slavs or Russians, leaving out the mention of Ptolemy already referred to, Jordanis says that at the beginning of the era of the migrations the Goths had carried on war with the "nation of Slavs"; this nation must have lived in what is now Southern Russia. The earliest Russian chronicle, erroneously ascribed to the monk Nestor, always calls the Slavs as a whole "Slavs". When it begins to narrate the history of Russia it speaks indeed of the Russians to whom it never applies the designation Slav, but it also often tells of the Slavs of Northern Russia, the Slavs of Novgorod. Those tribes that were already thoroughly incorporated in the Russian kingdom are simply called Russian tribes, while the Slavs in Northern Russia, who maintained a certain independence, were designated by the general expression Slavs. Consequently, the opinion advocated by Miklosic, namely, that the name Slav was originally applied only to one Slavonic tribe, is unfounded, though it has been supported by other scholars like Krek, Potkanski, Czermak, and Pasternek. From at least the sixth century the expression Slav was, therefore, the general designation of all Slavonic tribes. Wherever a Slavonic tribe rose to greater political importance and founded an independent kingdom of its own, the name of the tribe came to the front and pushed aside the general designation Slav. Where, however, the Slavs attained no political power but fell under the sway of foreign rulers they remained known by the general description Slav. Among the successful tribes who brought an entire district under their sway and gave it their name were the Russians, Poles, Czechs, Croats, and the Turanian tribe of the Bulgars. The old general name has been retained to the present time by the Slovenes of Southern Austria on the Adriatic coast, the Slovaks of Northern Hungary, the province Slavonia between Croatia and Hungary and its inhabitants the Slavonians, and the Slovinci of Prussia on the North Sea. Up to recent times the name was customary among the inhabitants of the most celebrated Republic of Dubrovnik (Ragusa). Until late in the Middle Ages it was retained by the Slavs of Novgorod in Northern Russia and by the Slavs in Macedonia and Albania. These peoples, however, have also retained their specific national and tribal names. B. Wends A much older designation in the historical authorities than Slav is the name Wend. It is under this designation that the Slavs first appear in history. The first certain references to the present Slavs date from the first and second centuries. They were made by the Roman writers Pliny and Tacitus and the Alexandrian already mentioned Ptolemy. Pliny (d. A.D. 79) says (Nat. hist., IV, 97) that among the peoples living on the other side of the Vistula besides the Sarmatians and others are also the Wends (Venedi). Tacitus (G., 46) says the same. He describes the Wends somewhat more in detail but cannot make up his mind whether he ought to include them among the Germans or the Sarmatians; still they seem to him to be more closely connected with the first named than with the latter. Ptolemy (d.about 178) in his Geographike (III, 57) calls the Venedi the greatest nation living on the Wendic Gulf. However, he says later (III, 5, 8) that they live on the Vistula; he also speaks of the Venedic mountains (III, 5, 6). In the centuries immediately succeeding the Wends are mentioned very rarely. The migrations that had now begun had brought other peoples into the foreground until the Venedi again appear in the sixth century under the name of Slavs. The name Wend, however, was never completely forgotten. The German chroniclers used both names constantly without distinction, the former almost oftener than the latter. Even now the Sorbs of Lusatic are called by the Germans Wends, while the Slovenes are frequently called Winds and their language is called Windish. Those who maintain the theory that the original home of the Slavs was in the countries along the Danube have tried to refute the opinion that these references relate to the ancestors of the present Slavs, but their arguments are inconclusive. Besides these definite notices there are several others that are neither clear nor certain. The Wends or Slavs have had connected with them as old tribal confederates of the present Slavs the Budinoi mentioned by Herodotus, and also the Island of Banoma mentioned by Pliny (IV, 94), further the venetae, the original inhabitants of the present Province of Venice, as well as the Homeric Venetoi, Caesar's Veneti in Gaul and Anglia, etc. In all probability, the Adriatic Veneti were an Illyrian tribe related to the present Albanians, but nothing is known of them. With more reason can the old story that the Greeks obtained amber from the River Eridanos in the country of the Enetoi be applied to the Wends or Slavs; from which it may be concluded that the Slavs were already living on the shores of the Baltic in the fourth century before Christ. Most probably the name Wend was of foreign origin and the race was known by this name only among the foreign tribes, while they called themselves Slavs. It is possible that the Slavs were originally named Wends by the early Gauls, because the root Wend, or Wind, is found especially in the districts once occupied by the Gauls. The word was apparently a designation that was first applied to various Gallic or Celtic tribes, and then given by the Celts to the Wendic tribes living north of them. The explanation of the meaning of the word is also to be sought from this point of view. The endeavour was made at one time to derive the word from the Teutonic dialects, as Danish wand, Old Norwegian vatn, Lation unda, meaning water. Thus Wends would signify watermen, people living about the water, people living by the sea, as proposed by Jordan, Adelung, and others. A derivation from the German wended (to turn) has also been suggested, thus the Wends are the people wandering about; or from the Gothic vinja, related to the German weiden, pasture, hence Wends, those who pasture, the shepherds; finally the word has been traced to the old root ven, belonging together. Wends would, therefore mean the allied. Pogodin traced the name from the Celtic, taking it from the early Celtic root vindos, white, by which expression the dark Celts designated the light Slavs. Naturally an explanation of the term was also sought in the Old Slavonic language; thus, Kollar derived it from the Old Slavonic word Un, Sassinek from Slo-van, Perwolf from the Old Slavonic root ved, still retained in the Old Slavonic comparative vestij meaning large and brought it into connection with the Russian Anti and Vjatici; Hilferding even derived it from the old East Indian designation of the Aryans Vanila, and Safarik connected the word with the East Indians, a confusion that is also to be found in the early writers. II. ORIGINAL HOME AND MIGRATIONS There are two theories in regard to the original home of the Slavs, and these theories are in sharp opposition to each other. One considers the region of the Danube as the original home of the Slavs, whence they spread northeast over the Carpathians as far as the Volga River, Lake Ilmen, and the Caspian Sea. The other theory regards the districts between the Vistula and the Dnieper as their original home, whence they spread southwest over the Carpathians to the Balkans and into the Alps, and towards the west across the Oder and the Elbe. The ancient Kiev chronicle, erroneously ascribed to the monk Nestor, is the earliest authority quoted for the theory that the original home of the Slavs is to be sought in the region of the Danube. Here in detail is related for the first time how the Slavs spread from the lower Danube to all the countries occupied later by them. The Noricans and Illyrians are declared to be Slavs, and Andronikos and the Apostle Paul are called Apostles to the Slavs because they laboured in Illyria and Pannocia. This view was maintained by the later chroniclers and historical writers of all Slavonic peoples, as the Pole Kadlubek, "Chronika pol." (1206), Boguchwal (d. 1253), Dlugos, Matej Miechowa, Decius, and others. Among the Czechs, this theory was supported by Kozmaz (d. 1125), Dalimir (d.1324), Johann Marignola (1355-1362), Pribik Pulkava (1374), and V. Hajek (1541). The Russians also developed their theories from the statements of their first chronicler, while the Greek Laonikos Harkondilos of the fifteenth century did not commit himself to this view. The southern Slavs have held this theory from the earliest period up to the present time with the evident intention to base on it their claims to the Church Slavonic in the Liturgy. At an early period, in the letter of Pope John X (914-29) to the Croatian Ban Tomislav and the Sachlumian ruler Mihael, there is a reference to the prevalent tradition that St. Jerome invented the Slavonic alphabet. This tradition maintained itself through the succeeding centuries, finding supporters even outside these countries, and was current at Rome itself. Consequently if we were to follow strictly the written historical authorities, of which a number are very trustworthy, we would be obliged to support the theory that the original home of the Slavs is in the countries along the Danube and on the Adriatic coast. However, the contrary is the case; the original home of the Slavs and the region from which their migrations began is to be sought in the basin of the Dnieper and in the region extending to the Carpathians and the Vistula. It is easy to explain the origin of the above-mentioned widely believed opinion. At the beginning of the Old Slavonic literature in the ancient Kingdom of the Bulgars the Byzantine chronicles of Hamartolos and Malala, which were besides of very little value, were translated into Slavonic. These chronicles give an account of the migrations of the nations from the region of Senaar after the Deluge. According to this account the Europeans are the descendants of Japhet, who journeyed from Senaar by way of Asia Minor to the Balkans; there they divided into various nations and spread in various directions. Consequently the Slavonic reader of these chronicles would believe that the starting point of the migrations of the Slavs also was the Balkans and the region of the lower Danube. Because the historical authorities place the ancient tribe of the Illyrians in this region, it was necessary to make this tribe also Slavonic. In the later battles of the Slavs for the maintenance of their language in the Liturgy, this opinion was very convenient, as appeal could be made for the Slavonic claims to the authority of St. Jerome and even of St. Paul. Opinions which are widely current yet do not correspond to facts are often adopted in historical writings. Among the Slavonic historians philogists supporting this theory are: Kopitar, August Schlötzer, Safarik, N. Arcybasef, Fr. Racki, Bielowski, M.Drinov, L.Stur, Ivan P. Filevic, Dm. Samaokvasov, M.Leopardov, N.Zakoski, and J.Pic. We have here an interesting proof that a tradition deeply rooted and extending over many centuries and found in nearly all of the early native historical authorities does not agree with historical fact. At present most scholars are of the opinion that the original home of the Slavs in Southeastern Europe must be sought between the Vistula and the Dneiper. The reasons for this belief are: the testimony of the oldest accounts of the Slavs, given as already mentioned by Pliny, Tacitus, and Ptolemy; further the close relationship between the Slavs and the Lettish tribes, pointing to the fact that originally the Slavs lived close to the Letts and Lithuanians; then various indications proving that the Slavs must have been originally neighbours of the Finnish and Turanian tribes. Historical investigation has shown that the Thraco- Illyrian tribes are not the forefathers of the Slavs, but form an independent family group between the Greeks and the Latins. There is no certain proof in the Balkan territory and in the region along the Danube of the presence of the Slavs there before the first century. On the other hand in the region of the Dneiper excavations and archeological finds show traces only of the Slavs. In addition the direction of the general march in the migrations of the nations was always from the northeast towards the south- west, but never in the opposite direction. Those who maintain the theory that the Slavs came from the region of the Danube sought to strengthen their views by the names of various places to be found in these districts that indicate Slavonic origin. The etymology of these names, however, is not entirely certain; there are other names that appear only int he later authorities of the first centuries after Christ. Some again prove nothing, as they could have arisen without the occupation of these districts by the Slavs. It can therefore be said almost positively that the original home of the Slavs was in the territory along the Dneiper, and farther to the northwest as far as the Vistual. From these regions, they spread to the west and southwest. This much only can be conceded to the other view, that the migration probably took place much earlier than is generally supposed. Probably, it took place slowly and be degrees. One tribe would push another ahead of it like a wave, and they all spread out in the wide territory from the North Sea to the Adriatic and Aegean Seas. Here and there some disorder was caused in the Slavonic migration by the incursions of Asiatic peoples, as Scythians, Sarmatians, Avars, Bulgars, and Magyars, as well as by the German migration from northwest to southeast. These incursions separated kindred tribes from one another or introduced foreign elements among them. Taken altogether, however, the natural arrangement was not much disturbed, kindred tribes journeyed together and settled near one another in the new land, so that even to-day the entire Slavonic race presents a regular succession of tribes. As early as the first century of our era individual Slavonic tribes must have crossed the boundaries of the original home and have settled at times among strangers at a considerable distance from the native country. At times again these outposts would be driven back and obliged to retire to the main body, but at the first opportunity they would advance again. Central Europe must have been largely populated by Slavs, as early as the era of the Hunnish ruler Attila, or of the migrations of the German tribes of the Goths, Lombards, Gepidae, Heruli, Rugians etc. These last-mentioned peoples and tribes formed warlike castes and military organizations which became conspicuous in history by their battles and therefore have left more traces in the old historical writings. The Slavs, however, formed the lower strata of the population of Central Europe; all the migrations of the other tribes passed over them, and when the times grew more peaceful the Slavs reappeared on the surface. It is only in this way that the appearance of the Slavs in great numbers in these countries directly after the close of the migrations can be explained without there being any record in history of when and whence they came without their original home being depopulated. III. CLASSIFICATION OF THE SLAVONIC PEOPLES The question as to the classification and number of the Slavonic peoples is a complicated one. Scientific investigation does not support the common belief, and in addition scholars do not agree in their opinions on this question. In 1822 the father of Slavonic philology, Joseph Dobrovsky, recognized nine Slavonic peoples and languages: Russian, Illyrian or Serb, Croat, Slovene, Korotanish, Slovak, Bohemians, Lusatian Sorb and Polish. In his "Slavonic Ethnology" (1842) Pavel Safarik enumerated six languages with thirteen dialects: Russian, Bolgarish, Illyrian, Lechish, Bohemians, Lusatian. The great Russian scholar J. Sreznejevskij held that there were eight Slavonic languages: Great Russians, Serbo-Croat, Korotanish, Polish, Lusatian, Bohemian, Slovak. In 1865 A. Schleicher enumerated eight Slavonic languages: Polish, Lusatians, Bohemian, Great Russian, Little Russian, Serb, Bulgarian, and Slovene. Franc Miklosic counted nine: Slovene, Bulgarian, Serbo-Croat, Great Russian, Little Russian, Bohemian, Polish, Upper Lusatian, Lower Lusatian. In 1907 Dm. Florinskij enumerated nine: Russian, Bulgarians, Serbo-Croat, Slovene, Bohemian-Moravian, Slovak, Lusatian, Polish and Kasube. In 1898 V. Jagic held that there were eight: Polish, Lusatian, Bohemian, Great Russian, Little Russian, Slovene, Serbo-Croat, Bulgarian. Thus it is seen that the greatest representatives of Slavonic linguistics are not in accord upon the question of the number of Slavonic languages. The case is the same from the purely philological point of view. Practically the matter is even more complicated because of other factors, which often play an important part, have to be considered, as religion, politics etc. At the present time some eleven to fourteen languages, not including the extinct ones, can be enumerated which lay claim to be reckoned as distinct tongues. The cause of the uncertainty is that it is impossible to state definitively of several branches of the Slavonic family whether they form an independent nation, or only the dialect and subdivision of another Slavonic nation, and further because often it is impossible to draw the line between one Slavonic people and another. The Great Russians, Poles, Bohemians and Bulgarians are universally admitted to be distinctive Slavonic peoples with distinctive languages. The Little Russians and the White Russians are trying to develop into separate nationalities, indeed the former have now to be recognized as a distinct people, at least this is true of the Ruthenians in Austria-Hungary. The Moravians must be included in the Bohemian nation, because they hold this themselves and no philological, political, or ethnographical reason opposes. The Slovaks of Moravia also consider that they are of Bohemian nationality. About sixty years ago the Slovaks of Hungary began to develop as a separate nation with a separate literary language and must now be regarded as a distinct people. The Lusatian Sorbs also are generally looked upon as a separate people with a distinct language. A division of this little nationality into Upper and Lower Lusatians has been made on account of linguistic, religious, and political differences; this distinction is also evident in the literary language, consequently some scholars regard the Lusatians as two different peoples. The remains of the languages of the former Slavonic inhabitants of Pomerania, the Sloventzi, or Kasube are generally regarded at present as dialects of Polish, though some distinguished Polish scholars maintain the independence of the Kasube language. The conditions in the south are even more complicated. Without doubt the Bulgarians are a separate nationality, but it is difficult to draw the line between the Bulgarians and the Serbian peoples, especially in Macedonia. Philologically the Croats and Serbs must be regarded as one nation; politically, however, and ethnographically they are distinct peoples. The population of Southern Dalmatia, the Moslem population of Bosnia, and probably also the inhabitants of some parts of Southern Hungary, and of Croatia cannot be assigned to a definite group. Again, the nationality and extent of the Slovenes living in the eastern Alps and on the Adriatic coast cannot be settled without further investigation. From a philological point of view the following fundamental principles must be taken for guidance. The Slavonic world in its entire extent presents philologically a homogeneous whole without sharply defined transitions or gradations. When the Slavs settled in the localities at present occupied by them they were a mass of tribes of closely allied tongues that changed slightly from tribe to tribe. Later historical development, the appearance of Slavonic kingdoms, the growth of literary languages, and various civilizing influences from without have aided in bringing about the result that sharper distinctions have been drawn in certain places, and that distinct nationalities have developed in different localities. Where these factors did not appear in sufficient number the boundaries are not settled even now, or have been drawn only of late. The Slavonic peoples can be separated into the following groups on the basis of philological differences: + The eastern or Russian group; in the south this group approaches the Bulgarian; in the northwest the White Russian dialects show an affinity to Polish. The eastern group is subdivided into Great Russian, that is, the prevailing Russian nationality, then Little Russian, and White Russian. + The northwestern group. This is subdivided into the Lechish languages and into Slovak, Bohemians, and Sorb tongues. The first sub-division includes the Poles, Kasubes, and Slovintzi, also the extinct languages of the Slavs who formerly extended across the Oder and the Elbe throughout the present Northern Germany. The second division includes the Bohemians, Slovaks, and the Lusatian Sorbs. The Slavs in the Balkans and in the southern districts of the Austro-Hungarians Monarchy are divided philologically into Bulgarians; Stokauans, who include all Serbs, the Slavonic Moslems of Bosnia, and also a large part of the population of Croatia; the Cakauans, who live partly in Dalmatia, Istria, and on the coast of Croatia; the Kajkauans, to whom must be assigned three Croatian countries and all Slovene districts. According to the common opinion that is based upon a combination of philological, political and religious reasons the Slavs are divided into the following nations: Russian, Polish, Bohemian-Slovak, Slovenes, Serbs, Croats, Bulgarians. IV. PRESENT CONDITION A. Russians The Russians live in Russia and the northeastern part of Austria-Hungary. They form a compact body only in the southwestern part of the Russian Empire, as in the north and east they are largely mixed with Finnish and Tatar populations. In Austria the Little Russians inhabit Eastern Galicia and the northern part of Bukowina; in Hungary they lice in the eastern part on the slopes of the Carpathians. Scattered colonies of Little Russians or Ruthenians are also to be found in Slavonia and Bosnia among the southern Slavs, in Bulgaria, and in the Dobrudja. In Asia Western Siberia is Russian, Central Siberia has numerous Russians colonies, while Eastern Siberia is chiefly occupied by native tribes. There are Russians, however, living in the region of the Amur River, and on the Pacific as well as on the Island of Saghalien. Turkestan and the Kirghiz steppes have native populations with Russian colonies in the cities. There are large numbers of Russian emigrants, mostly members of sects, in Canada and elsewhere in America. Brazil, Argentina, and the United States have many Little Russian immigrants. There are small Russian colonies in Asia Minor and lately the emigration has also extended to Africa. According to the Russian census of 1897 there were in the Russian Empire 83,933,567 Russians, that is, 67 percent of the entire population of the empire. Allowing for natural increase, at the present (1911) time there are about 89 millions. In 1900 there were in Austria 3,375,576 Ruthenians, in Hungary 429,447. Consequently in 1900 the total number of Russians could be reckoned at about 93 million persons. This does not include the Russian colonists in other countries; moreover, the numbers given by the official statistics of Austria-Hungary may be far below reality. Classified by religion the Russian Slavs are divided as follows: in Russian Orthodox, 95.48 percent; Old Believers 2.59 per cent; Catholics 1.78 per cent; Protestants .05 percent; Jews .08 per cent; Moslems .01 per cent; in Austria-Hungary Byzantine Catholics, 90.6 percent, the Eastern Orthodox, 8 percent. In the Russian Empire, excluding Finland and Poland, 77.01 percent are illiterates; in Poland, 69.5 percent; Finland and the Baltic provinces with the large German cities show a higher rate of literacy. The Russians are divided into Great Russians, Little Russians or inhabitants of the Ukraine, and White Russians. In 1900 the relative numbers of these three divisions were approximately: Great Russians, 59,000,000; White Russians, 6,2000,000; Little Russians, 23,700,000. In addition there are 3,8000,000 Little Russians in Austria-Hungary, and 5000,000 in America. The Russian official statistics are naturally entirely too unfavourable to the White Russians and the Little Russians; private computations of the Little Russian scholars give much higher results. Hrusevskij found that the Little Russians taken altogether numbered 34,000,000; Karskij calculated that the White Russians numbered 8,000,000. A thousand years of historical development, different influences of civilization, different religious confessions, and probably also the original philological differentiation have caused the Little Russians to develop as a separate nation, and to-day this fact must be taken as a fixed factor. Among the White Russians the differentiation has not developed to so advances a stage, but the tendency exists. In classifying the Little Russians three different types can be again distinguished: the Ukrainian, the Podolian-Galician, and the Podlachian. Ethnographically interesting as the Little Russian or Ruthenian tribes in the Carpathians, the Lemci, Boici, and Huzuli (Gouzouli). The White Russians are divided into two groups; ethnographically the eastern group is related to the Great Russians; the western to the Poles. B. Poles The Poles represent the northwestern branch of the Slavonic race. From the very earliest times they have lived in their ancestral regions between the Carpathians, the Oder, and the North Sea. A thousand years ago Boleslaw the Brave united all the Slavonic tribes living in these territories into a Polish kingdom. This kingdom which reached its highest prosperity at the close of the Middle Ages, then gradually declined and, at the close of the eighteenth century, was divided by the surrounding powers -- Russia, Prussia, and Austria. In Austria the Poles form the population of Western Galicia and are in a large minority throughout Eastern Galicia; in Eastern Galicia the population of the cities particularly is preponderantly Polish, as is also a large part of the population of a section of Austrian Silesia, the district of Teschin. The Poles are largely represented in the County of Zips in Hungary and less largely in other Hungarian counties which border on Western Galicia. There is a small Polish population in Bukowina. In Prussia the Poles live in Upper Silesia, from a large majority of the inhabitants of the Province of Posen, and also inhabit the districts of Dantzic and Marienwerder in West Prussia, and the southern parts of East Prussia. In Russia the Poles from 71.95 percent of the population in the nine provinces formed from the Polish kingdom. In addition they live in the neighbouring district of the Province of Grodno and form a relatively large minority in Lithuania and in the provinces of White and Little Russia, where they are mainly owners of large estates and residents of cities. According to the census of 1900 the Poles in Russia numbered about 8,400,000; in Austria, 4,259,150, in Germany, including the Kasubes and Mazurians, 3,450,200; in the rest of Europe about 55,000; and in America about 1,500,00; consequently altogether, 17,664,350. Czerkawski reckoned the total number of Poles to be 21,111,374; Straszewicz held that they numbered from 18 to 19,000,000. As regards religion the Poles of Russia are almost entirely Catholic; in Austria 83.4 per cent are Catholics, 14.7 percent are Jews, and 1.8 per cent are Protestants; in Germany they are also almost entirely Catholics, only the Mazurians in East Prussia and a small portion of the Kasubes are Protestant. Ethnographically the Polish nation is divided into three groups: the Great Poles live in Posen, Silesia, and Prussia; the Little Poles on the upper Vistula as far as the San River and in the region of the Tatra mountains; the Masovians east of the Vistula and along the Narva and the Bug. The Kasubes could be called a fourth group. All these groups can be subdivided again into a large number of branches, but the distinctions are not so striking as in Russia and historical tradition keeps all these peoples firmly united. The Kasubes live on the left bank of the Vistula from Dantzic to the boundary of Pomerania and to the sea. According to government statistics in 1900 there were in Germany 100,213 Kasubes. The very exact statistics of the scholar Ramult gives 174,831 Kasubes for the territory where they live in large bodies, and 200,000 for a total including those scattered through Germany, to which should be added a further 130,000 in America. According to the latest investigation the Kasubes are what remains of the Slavs of Pomerania who are, otherwise, long extinct. C. Lusatian Sorbs The Lusatian Sorbs are the residue of the Slavs of the Elbe who once spread across the Oder and Elbe, inhabiting the whole of the present Germany. During centuries of combat with the Germans their numbers gradually decreased. They are divided into three main groups: the Obotrites who inhabited the present Mecklenburg, Lüneburg, and Holstein whence they extended into the Old Mark; the Lutici or Veltae, who lived between the Oder and Elbe, the Baltic and the Varna; the Sorbs, who lived on the middle course of the Elbe between the Rivers Havel and Bober. The Lutici died out on the Island of Rügen at the beginning of the fifteenth century. In the middle of the sixteenth century there were still large numbers of Slavs in Lüneburg and in the northern part of the Old Mark, while their numbers were less in Mecklenburg and in Brandenburg. However, even in Lüneburg the last Slavs disappeared between 1750-60. Only the Lusatian Sorbs who lived nearer the borders of Bohemia have been able to maintain themselves in declining numbers until the present time. The reason probably is that for some time their territory belonged to Bohemia. At present the Lusatian Sorbs numbers about 150,000 persons on the upper course of the Spree. They are divided into two groups, which differ so decidedly from each other in speech and customs that some regard them as two peoples; they also have two separate literatures. They are rapidly becoming Germanized, especially in Lower Lusatia. The Lusatian Sorbs are Catholics with exception of 15,000 in Upper Lusatia. D. Bohemians and Slovaks The Bohemians and Slovaks also belong to the northwestern branch of the Slavonic peoples. They entered the region now constituting Bohemia from the north and then spread farther into what is now Moravia and Northern Hungary, and into the present Lower Austria as far as the Danube. The settlements of the Slovaks in Hungary must have extended far towards the south, perhaps as far as Lake Platten, where they came into contact with the Slovenes who belonged to the southern Slavonic group. Probably, however, they did not formerly extend as far towards the east as now, and the Slovaks in the eastern portion of Slovakia are really Ruthenians who were Slovakanized in the late Middle Ages. Directly after their settlement in these countries the Bohemians fell apart into a great number of tribes. One tribe, which settled in the central part of the present Bohemia, bore the name of Czechs. It gradually brought all the other tribes under its control and gave them its name, so that since then the entire people have been called Czechs. Along with this name, however, the name Bohemians has also been retained; it comes from the old Celtic people, the Boii, who once lived in these regions. Soon, however, German colonies sprang up among the Bohemians or Czechs. The colonists settled along the Danube on the southern border of Bohemia and also farther on in the Pannonian plain. However, these settlements disappeared during the storm of the Magyar incursion. The Bohemians did not suffer from it as they did from the later immigrations of German colonists who brought into the country by the Bohemian rulers of the native Premsylidian dynasty. These colonists lived through the mountains which encircle Bohemia and large numbers of them settled also in the interior of the country. From the thirteenth century the languages of Bohemia and Moravia became distinct tongues. The Bohemians have emigrated to various countries outside of Bohemia-Moravia. In America there are about 800,000 Bohemians; there are large Bohemian colonies in Russian in the province of Volhynia, also in the Crimea, in Poland, and in what is called New Russia, altogether numbering 50,385. In Bulgaria there are Bohemian colonies in Wojewodovo and near Plevna; there is also a Bohemian colony in New Zealand. Nearly 400,000 Bohemians live at Vienna, and there are large numbers of Bohemians in the cities of Linz, Pesth, Berlin, Dresden, Leipzig, Triest; there are smaller, well-organized Bohemian colonies in nearly all Austrian cities, besides large Bohemian colonies in Hungary and Slavonia. In the last-mentioned country there are 31,581 Bohemians. These settlements are modern. The Slovaks occupy the southeastern part of Moravia and the northeastern part of Hungary from the Carpathians almost to the Danube. But there are scattered settlements of Slovaks far into the Hungarian plain and even in Southern Hungary, besides colonies of Slovaks in Slavonia. On account of the barreness of the soil of their native land many Slovaks emigrate to America. According to the Austrian census of 1900 there were 5,955,297 Bohemians in Austria. The numbers may be decidedly higher. In Germany there were 115,000 Bohemians,; in Hungary 2,019,641 Slovaks and 50,000 Bohemians; in America there are at least 800,000 Bohemians; in Russia 55,000; in the rest of Europe 20,000. Consequently taking all Bohemians and Slovaks together there are probably over 9,000,000. If, as is justifiable, the figures for America, Vienna, Moravia, Silesia, and Hungary are considered entirely too low, a maximum of about 10,000,000 may be accepted. As to religion 96.5 percent of the Bohemians are Catholics, and 2.4 percent are Protestants; 70.2 per cent of t the Slovaks are Catholics, 5.3 percent are Byzantine Catholics, and 23 percent are Protestants. E. Slovenes The Slovenes belong, together with the Croats, Serbs, and Bulgarians, to the southern group of Slavs. The Slovenes have the position farther to the west in the Alps and on the Adriatic. They first appeared in this region after the departure of the Lombards for Italy and the first date in their history in 595, when they fought an unsuccessful battle with the Bavarian Duke Tassilo on the field of Roblach. They occupied at first a much larger territory than at present. They extended along the Drave as far as the Tyrol, reaching the valleys of the Rivers Riem and Eisack; they also occupied the larger part of what is now Upper Austria, Lower Austria as far as the Danube, and from the district of the Lungau in Southern Salzburg through Carinthia, Carniola, Styria, the crownland of Görz-Gradiska, and a large part of Friuli. Under German supremacy the territory occupied by them has grown considerable less in the course of the centuries. They still maintain themselves only in Carniola, in the northern part of Istria, about Görz, and in the vicinity of Triest, in the mountainous districts north of Udine in Italy, in the southern part of Carinthia and Styria, and in the Hungarians countries bordering on the farther side of the Mur River. Carinthia is becoming rapidly Germanized, and the absorption of the other races in Hungary constantly advances. According to the census of 1900 there were 1,192,780 Slovenes in Austria, 94,993 in Hungary, 20,987 in Croatia and Slavonia, probably 37,000 in Italy, in America 100,000 and 20,000 in other countries. There are, taking them altogether, probably about 1,5000,000 Slovenes int he world; 99 percent of them are Catholics. F. Croats and Serbs In speech the Croats and Serbs are one people; they have the same literary language, but use different characters. The Croats write with the Latin characters and the Serbs with the Cyrillic. They have been separated into two peoples by religion, political development, and different forms of civilization; the Croats came under the influence of Latin civilization, the Serbs under that of the Byzantines. After the migration the warlike tribe of the Croats gained the mastery over the Slavonic tribes then living in the territory between the Kulpa and the Drave, the Adriatic and the River Cetina, in Southern Dalmatia. They founded the Croat Kingdom on the remains of Latin civilization and with Roman Catholicism as their religion. Thus the Croat nation appeared. It was not until a later date that the tribes living to the south and east began to unite politically under the old Slavonic name of Serbs, and in this region the Serbian nation developed. Decided movements of the population came about later, being caused especially by the Turkish wars. The Serbian settlements, which originally followed only a southeastern course, now turned in an entirely opposite direction to the northeast. The original home of the Serbs was abandoned largely to the Albanians and Turks; the Serbs emigrated to Bosnia and across Bosnia to Dalmatia and even to Italy, where Slavonic settlements still exist in Abruzzi. Others crossed the boundaries of the Croat Kingdom and settled in large numbers in Serbia and Slavonia, also in Southern Hungary, where the Austrian Government granted them religious and national autonomy and a patriarch of their own. Some of the Serbs settled here went to Southern Russia and founded there what is called the New Serbia in the Government of Kherson. Consequently, the difference between the Croats and the Serbs consists not in the language but mainly in the religion, also in the civilization, history, and in the form of handwriting. But all these characteristic differences are not very marked, and thus there are districts and sections of population which cannot be easily assigned to one or the other nation, and which both peoples are justified in claiming. Taking Serbs and Croats together there are: in Austria 711,382; in Hungary and Croatia, 2,839,016; in Bosnia and Herzegovina, probably 1,7000,000; in Montenegro, 350,000; in Serbia 2,298,551; Old Serbia and Macedonia, 350,000; Albania and the vilayet of Scutari, about 100,000; Italy 5000; Russia 2000; America and elsewhere, 300,000. In addition there are about 108,000 Schokzians, Bunjevzians, and Krashovanians, Serbo-Croatian tribes in Hungary who were not included with these in the census. Consequently the number of this bipartite people may by reckoned approximately as 8,700,000 persons. According to Serbian computation there are about 2,300,000 Croats in Austria-Hungary; the Croats reckon their number as over 2,700,000. The controversy results from the uncertainty as to the group to which the Bosnian Moslems and the above-mentioned Schokzians, Bunjevzians, and Krashovanians, as well as the population of Southern Dalmatia, belong. As to religion, the Serbs are almost exclusively Eastern Orthodox, the Croats Catholic, the great majority of the inhabitants of Southern Dalmatia are Catholic, but many consider themselves as belonging to the Serbian nation. The branches in Hungary mentioned above are Catholic; it is still undecided whether to include them among the Croats or Serbs. G. Bulgarians The Slavonic tribes living in ancient Roman Moesia and Thrace south of the Danube and southeast of the Serbs as far as the Black Sea came under the sway of the Turanian tribe of the Bulgars, which established the old Kingdom of Bulgaria in this region as early as the second half of the seventh century. The conquerors soon began to adopt the language and customs of the subjugated people, and from this intermixture arose the Bulgarian people. The historical development was not a quiet and uniform one; there were continual migrations and remigration, conquests and inter- mingling. When the Slavs first entered the Balkan peninsula they spread far beyond their present boundaries and even covered Greece and the Peloponnesus, which seemed about to become Slavonic. However, thanks to their higher civilization and superior tactics, the Greeks drove back the Slavs. Still, Slavonic settlements continued to exist in Greece and the Peloponnesus until the late Middle Ages. The Greeks were aided by the Turkish conquest, and the Slavs were forced to withdraw to the limit that is still maintained. The Turks then began to force back the Slavonic population in Macedonia and Bulgaria and to plant colonies of their own people in certain districts. The chief aim of the Turkish colonization was always to obtain strategic points and to secure the passes over the Balkans. The Slavonic population also began to withdraw from the plains along the Danube where naturally great battles were often fought, and which were often traversed by the Turkish army. A part emigrated to Hungary, where a considerable number of Bulgarian settlements still exist; others journeyed to Bessarabia and South Russia. After the liberation of Bulgaria the emigrants began to return and the population moved again from the mountains into the valleys, while large numbers of Turks and Circassians went back from liberated Bulgaria to Turkey. On the other hand the emigration from Macedonia is still large. Owing to these uncertain conditions, and especially on account of the slight investigation of the subject in Macedonia, it is difficult to give the size of the Bulgarian population even approximately. In approximate figures the Bulgarians number: in the Kingdom of Bulgaria, 2,864,735; Macedonia, 1,200,000; Asia Minor, 600,000; Russia, 180,000; Rumania, 90,000; in other countries 50,000, hence there are altogether perhaps over 5,000,000. In Bulgaria there are besides the Bulgarian population, 20,644 Pomaks, that is Moslems who speak Bulgarian, 1516 Serbs, 531,217 Turks, 9862 Gagauzi (Bulgarians who speak Turkish), 18,874 Tatars, 66,702 Greeks in cities along the coast, 89,563 Gypsies, and 71,023 Rumanians. The kingdom, therefore, is not an absolutely homogeneous nationality. In religion the Bulgarians are Eastern Orthodox with the exception of the Pomaks, already mentioned, and of the Paulicians who are Catholics. The Bulgarians are divided into a number of branches and dialects; it is often doubtful whether some of these subdivisions should not be included among the Serbs. This is especially the case in Macedonia, consequently all enumerations of the population differ extremely from one another. If, on the basis of earlier results, the natural annual growth of the Slavonic populations is taken as 1.4 percent, it may be claimed that there were about 156-157 million Slavs in the year 1910. In 1900 all Slavs taken together numbered approximately 136,500,000 persons divided thus: Russians, 94,000,000; Poles, 17,500,000; Lusatian Serbs, 150,000; Bohemians and Slovaks, 9,800,000; Slovenes, 1,500,000; Serbo-Croats, 8,550,000; Bulgarians, 5,000,000. LEOPOLD LÉNARD The Slavs in America The Slavs in America The Slavic races have sent large numbers of their people to the United States and Canada, and this immigration is coming every year in increasing numbers. The earliest immigration began before the war of the States, but within the past thirty years it has become so great as quite to overshadow the Irish and German immigration of the earlier decades. For two-thirds of that period no accurate figures of tongues or nationalities were kept, the immigrants being merely credited to the political governments or countries from which they came, but within the past twelve years more accurate data have been preserved. During these years (1899-1910) the total immigration into the United States has been about 10,000,000 in round numbers, and of these the Slavs have formed about 22 percent (actually 2,117,240), to say nothing of the increase of native-born Slavs in this country during that period, as well as the numbers of the earlier arrivals. Reliable estimated compiled from the various racial sources show that there are from five and a half to six millions of Slavs in the United States, including the native-born of Slavic parents. We are generally unaware of these facts, because the Slavs are less conspicuous among us than the Italians, Germans, or Jews; their languages and their history are unfamiliar and remote, besides they are not so massed in the great cities of this country. I. BOHEMIANS (Cech; adjective, cesky, Bohemian) These people -- also called the Czechs -- are named Bohemians after the original tribe of the Boii, who dwelt in Bohemia in Roman times. By a curious perversion of language, on account of various gypsies who about two centuries ago travelled westward across Bohemia and thereby came to be known in France as "Bohemians," the word Bohemian came into use to designate one who lived an easy, careless life, unhampered by serious responsibilities. Such a meaning is, however, the very antithesis of the serious conservative Czech character. The names of a few Bohemians are found in the early history of the United States. Augustyn Herman (1692) of Bohemia Manor, Maryland, and Bedrich Filip (Frederick Philipse, 1702) of Philipse Manor, Yonkers, New York, are the earliest. In 1848 the revolutionary uprisings in Austria sent many Bohemians to this country. In the eighteenth century the Moravian Brethren (Bohemian Brethren) had come in large numbers. The finding of gold in California in 1849-50 attracted many more, especially as serfdom and labour dues were abolished in Bohemia at the end of 1848, which left the peasant and the workman free to travel. In 1869 and the succeeding years immigration was stimulated by the labour strikes in Bohemia, and one occasion all the women workers of several cigar factories came over and settled in New York. About 60 percent of the Bohemians and Moravians who have settled here are Catholics, and their churches have been fairly maintained. Their immigration during the past ten years has been 98,100, and in 1910 the number of Bohemians in the United States, immigrants and native born, was reckoned at 55,000. They have some 140 Bohemian Catholic churches and about 250 Bohemian priests; their societies, schools, and general institutions are active and flourishing. II. BULGARIANS (Bulgar; adjective bulgarski, Bulgarian) This part of the Slavic race inhabits the present Kingdom of Bulgaria, and the Turkish provinces of Eastern Rumelia, representing ancient Macedonia. Thus it happens that the Bulgarians are almost equally divided between Turkey and Bulgaria. Their ancestors were the Bolgars or Bulgars, a Finnish tribe, which conquered, intermarried, and coalesced with the Slav inhabitants, and eventually gave their name to them. The Bulgarian tongue is in many respects the nearest to the Church Slavonic, and it was the ancient Bulgarian which Sts. Cyril and Methodius are said to have learned in order to evangelize the pagan Slavs. The modern Bulgarian language, written with Russian characters and a few additions, differs from the other Slavic languages in that it, like English, has lost nearly every inflection, and, like Rumanian, has the peculiarity of attaching the article to the end of the word, while the other Slavic tongues have no article at all. The Bulgarians who have gained their freedom from Turkish supremacy in the present Kingdom of Bulgaria are fairly contented; but those in Macedonia chafe bitterly against Turkish rule and form a large portion of those who emigrate to America. The Bulgarians are nearly all of the Greek Orthodox Church; there are some twenty thousand Byzantine Catholics, mostly in Macedonia, and about 50,000 Latin-Rite Catholics. The Greek Patriach of Constantinople has always claimed jurisdiction over the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, and he enforced his jurisdiction until 1872, when the Bulgarian exarch was appointed to exercise supreme jurisdiction. Since that time the Bulgarians have been in a state of schism to the patriarch. They are ruled in Bulgaria by a Holy Synod of their own, whilst the Bulgarian exarch, resident in Constantinople, is the head of the entire Bulgarian Church. He is recognized by the Russian Church, but is considered excommunicate by the Greek Patriarch, who however retained his authority over the Greek-speaking churches of Macedonia and Bulgaria. Bulgarians came to the United States as early as 1890; but there were then only a few of them as students, mostly from Macedonia, brought hither by mission bodies to study for the Protestant ministry. The real immigration began in 1905, when it seems that the Bulgarians discovered America as a land of opportunity, stimulated probably by the Turkish and Greek persecutions then raging in Macdeonia against them. The railroads and steel works in the West needed men, and several enterprising steamship agents brought over Macedonians and Bulgarians in large numbers. Before 1906 there were scarcely 500 to 600 Bulgarians in the country, and these chiefly in St. Louis, Missouri. Since then they have been coming at the rate of from 8000 to 10,000 a year, until now (1911) there are from 80,000 to 90,000 Bulgarians scattered throughout the United States and Canada. The majority of them are employed in factories, railroads, mines, and sugar works. Granite City, Madison, and Chicago, Illinois; St. Louis, Missouri; Indianapolis, Indiana; Steelton, Pennsylvania; Portland, Oregon, and New York City all have a considerable Bulgarian population. They also take to farming and are scattered throughout the northwest. They now (1911) have three Greek Orthodox churches in the United States, at Granite City and Madison, Illinois, and at Steelton, Pennsyvania, as well as several mission stations. Their clergy consist of one monk and two secular priests; and they also have a church in Toronto, Canada. There are not Bulgarian Catholics, either of the Greek or Roman Rite sufficient to form a church here. The Bulgarians, unlike the other Slavs, have no church or benefit societies or brotherhood in America. They publish five Bulgarian papers, of which the "Naroden Glas" of Granite City in the most important. III. CROATIANS (Hrvat; adjective, hrvatski, Croatian) These are the inhabitants of the autonomous or home-rule province of Croatia-Slavonia, in the southwestern part of the Kingdom of Hungary where it reaches down to the Adriatic Sea. It included not only them but also the Slavic inhabitants of Istria and Dalmatia, in Austria, and those of Bosnia and Herzegovina who are Catholic and use the Roman alphabet. In blood and speech the Croatians and Serbians are practically one; but religion and politics divide them. The former are Catholics and use the Roman letters; the latter are Greek Orthodox and use modified Russian letters. In many of the places on the borderline school-children have to learn both alphabets. The English word "cravat" is derived from their name, it being the Croatian neckpiece which the south Austrian troops wore. Croatia-Slavonia itself has a population of nearly 2,500,000 and is about one-third the size of the state of New York. Croatia in the west is mountainous and somewhat poor, while Slavonia in the east is level, fertile, and productive. Many Dalmatian Croats from seaport town came here from 1850 to 1870. The original emigration from Croatia-Slavonia began in 1873, upon the completion of the new railway connections to the seaport of Fiume, when some of the more adventurous Croatians came to the United States. From the early eighties the Lipa-Krbava district furnished much of the emigration. The first Croatian settlements were made in Calumet, Michigan, while many of them became lumbermen in Michigan and stave-cutters along the Mississippi. Around Agram (Zagreb, the Croatian capital) the grape disease caused large destruction of vineyards and the consequent emigration of thousands. Later on emigration began from Varasdin and from Slavonia also, and now immigrants arrive from every county in Croatia-Slavonia. In 1899 the figures for Croatia-Slavonia were 2923, and by 1907 the annual immigration had risen to 22,828, the largest number coming from Agram and Varasdin Counties. Since then it has fallen off, and at the present time (1911) it is not quite 20,000. Unfortunately the governmental statistics do not separate the Slovenians from the Croatians in giving the arrivals of Austro-Hungarian immigrants, but the Hungarian figures of departures serve as checks. The number of Croatians in the United States at present, including the native-born, is about 280,000, divided according to their origin as follows: from Croatia-Slavonia, 160,000; Dalmatia, 80,000; Bosnia, 20,000; Herzegovina, 15,000; and the remainder from various parts of Hungary and Serbia. The largest group of them is in Pennsylvania, chiefly in the neighbourhood of Pittsburg, and they number probably from 80,000 to 100,000. Illinois has about 45,000, chiefly in Chicago. Ohio has about 35,000, principally in Cleveland and the vicinity. Other considerable colonies are in New York, San Francisco, St. Louis, Kansas City, and New Orleans. They are also in Montana, Colorado, and Michigan. The Dalmatians are chiefly engaged in business and grape culture; the other Croatians are mostly labourers employed in mining, railroad work, steel mills, stockyards, and stone quarries. Nearly all of these are Catholics, and they now have one Greek Catholic and 16 Latin-Rite Catholic churches in the United States. The Greek Catholics are almost wholly from the Diocese of Krizevac (Crisium), and are chiefly settled at Chicago and Cleveland. They have some 250 societies devoted to church and patriotic purposes, and in some cases to Socialism, but as yet they have no very large central organization, the National Croatian Union with 29,247 members being the largest. They publish ten newspapers, among them two dailies, of which "Zajednicar" the organ of Narodne Hrvatske Zajednice (National Croatian Union) is the best known. IV. POLES (Polak, a Pole; adjective polski, Polish) The Poles came to the United States quite early in its history. Aside from some few early settlers, the American Revolution attracted such noted men as Kosciuszko and Pulaski, together with many of their fellow countrymen. The Polish Revolution of 1830 brought numbers of Poles to the United States. In 1851 a Polish colony settled in Texas, and called their settlement Panna Marya (Our Lady Mary). In 1860 they settled at Parisville, Michigan, and Polonia, Wisconsin. Many distinguished Poles served in the Civil War (1861-65) upon both sides. After 1873 the Polish immigration began to grow apace, chiefly from Prussian Poland. Then the tide turned and came from Austria, and later from Russian Poland. In 1890 they began to come in the greatest numbers from Austrian and Russian Poland, until the flow from German Poland has largely diminished. The immigration within the past ten years has been as follows: from Russia, 53 percent; from Austria about 43 percent; and only a fraction over 4 percent from the Prussian or German portion. It is estimated that there are at present about 3,000,000 Poles in the United States, counting the native-born. It may be said that they are almost solidly Catholic; the dissident and disturbing elements among them being but comparatively small, while there is no purely Protestant element at all. They have one Polish bishop, about 750 priests, and some 520 churches and chapels, besides 355 school. There are large numbers, both men and women, who are members of the various religious communities. The Poles publish some 70 newspapers, amongst them nine dailies, 20 of which are purely Catholic publications. Their religious and national societies are large and flourishing; and altogether the Polish element is active and progressive. V. RUSSIANS (Rossiyanin; adjective rossiiski, Russian) Russia is the largest nation in Europe, and its Slavic inhabitants (exclusive of Poles) are composed of Great Russians or Northern Russians, White Russians or Western Russians, and the Little Russians (Ruthenians) or Southern Russians. The area around Moscow and St. Petersburg is called Great Russia, in allusion to its stature and great predominance in number, government, and language. The White Russians are so called from the prevailing colour of the clothing of the peasantry, and inhabit the provinces lying on the borders of Poland -- Vitebsk, Mohilev, Minsk, Vilna, and Grodno. Their language differs but slightly from Great Russian, inclining towards Polish and Old Slavonic. The Little Russians (so called from their low stature) differ considerably from the Great Russians in language and customs, and they inhabit the Provinces of Kiev, Kharkov, Tchernigov, Poltava, Podolia, and Volhynia, and they are also found outside the Empire of Russia, in Galicia, Bukovina, and Hungary (see below, section VI). The Great Russians may be regarded as the norm of the Russian people. Their language became the language of the court and of literature, just as High German and Tuscan Italian did, and they form the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of the Russian Empire. They are practically all Eastern Orthodox, the Catholics in Russia being Poles or Germans where they are of the Roman Rite, and Little Russians (Ruthenians) where they are of the Greek Rite. The Russians have long been settled in America, for Alaska was Russian territory before it was purchased by the United States in 1867. The Russian Orthodox church has been on American soil since the early nineteenth century. The immigration from Russia is however composed of very few Russians. It is principally made up of Jews (Russian and Polish), Poles, and Lithuanians. Out of an average emigration of from 250,000 to 260,000 annually from the Russian Empire to the United States, 65 percent have been Jews and only from three to five percent actual Russians. Nevertheless the Russian peasant and working class are active emigrants, and the exodus from European Russia is relatively large. But it is directed eastward instead of to the west, for Russia is intent upon settling up her vast prairie lands in Siberia. Hinderances are placed in the way of those Russians (except the Hews) who would leave for America or the west of Europe, while inducements and advantages are offered for settlers in Siberia. For the past five years about 500,000 Russians have annually migrated to Siberia, a number equal to one-half the immigrants yearly received by the United States from all sources. They go in great colonies and are aided by the Russian Government by grants of land, loans of money, and low transportation. New towns and cities have sprung up all over Siberia, which are not even on our maps, thus rivalling the American settlement of the Dakotas and the North West. Many Russians religious colonists, other than the Jews, have come to America; but often they are not wholly of Slavic blood or are Little Russians (Ruthenians). It therefore happens that there are very few Russians in the United States as compared with other nationalities. There are, according to the latest estimates, about 75,000, chiefly in Pennsylvania and the Middle West. There has been a Russian colony in San Francisco for sixty years, and they are numerous in and around New York City. The Russian Orthodox Church is well established here. About a third of the russians in the United States are opposed to it, being of the anti-government, semi-revolutionary type of immigrant. But the others are enthusiastic in support of their Church and their national customs, yet their Church included not only them but the Little Russians of Bukovina and a very large number of Greek Catholics of Galicia and Hungary whom they have induced to leave the Catholic and enter the Orthodox Church. The Russian Church in the United States is endowed by the tsar and the Holy Governing Synod, besides having the support of Russian missionary societies at home, and is upon a flourishing financial basis in the United States. It now (1911) has 83 churches and chapels in the United States, 15 in Alaska, and 18 in Canada, making a total of 126 places of worship, besides a theological seminary at Minneapolis and a monastery at South Canaan, Pennsylvannia. Their present clergy is composed of one archbishop, one bishop, 6 proto-priests, 89 secular priests, 2 archimandrites, 2 hegumens, and 18 monastic priests, making a total of 119, while they also exercise jurisdiction over the Serbian and Syrian Orthodox clergy besides. Lately they took over a Greek Catholic sisterhood, and now have four Basilian nuns. The United States is now divided up into the following six districts of the Russian Church, intended to be the territory for future dioceses: New York and the New England States, Pennsylvania and the Atlantic States; Pittsburg and the Middle West; Western Pacific States; Canada; and Alaska. Their statistics of church population have not been published lately in their year-books, and much of their growth has been of late years by additions gained from the Greek Catholic Ruthenians of Galicia and Hungary, and is due largely to the active and energetic work and financial support of the Russian church authorities at St. Petersburg and Moscow. They have the "Russkoye Pravoslavnoye Obshestvo Vzaimopomoshchi" (Russian Orthodox Mutual Aid Society) for men, founded in 1895, now (1911) having 199 councils and 7072 members, and the women's division of the same, founded in 1907, with 32 councils and 690 members. They publish two church papers, "America Orthodox Messenger", and "Svit"; although there are some nine other Russian papers published by Jews and Socialists. VI. RUTHENIANS (Rusin; adjective russky, Ruthenian) These are the southern branch of the Russian family, extending from the middle of Austria-Hungary across the southern part of Russia. The use of the adjective russky by both the Ruthenians and the Russians permits it to be translated into English by the work "Ruthenian" or "Russian". They are also called Little Russians (Malorossiani) in Russia itself, and sometimes Russniaki in Hungary. The appellations "Little Russians" and "Ruthenians" have come to have almost a technical meaning, the former indicating subjects of the Russian Empire who are of the Greek Orthodox Church, and the latter those who are in Austria-Hungary and are Catholics of the Greek Rite. Those who are active in the Panslavic movement and are Russo-philes are very anxious to have then called "Russians", no matter whence they come. The Ruthenians are of the original Russo-Slavic race, and gave their name to the peoples making up the present Russian Empire. They are spread all over the southern part of Russia, in the provinces of Kiev, Kharkov, Tchernigogg, Poltava, and Podolia, and Volhynia (see above, V. RUSSIANS), but by force of governmental pressure and restrictive laws are being slowly made into Great Russians. Only within the past five years has the use of their own form of language and their own newspapers and press been allowed by law in Russia. Nearly every Ruthenian author in the empire has written his chief works in Great Russian, because denied the use of his own language. They are also spread throughout the Provinces of Lublin, in Poland; Galicia and Bukovina, in Austria; and the Counties of Szepes, Saros, Abauj, Zamplim, Ung, Marmos, and Bereg, in Hungary. They have had an opportunity to develop in Austria and also in Hungary. In the latter country they are closely allied with the Slovaks, and many of them speak the Slovak language. They are all of the Greek Rite, and with the exception of those in Russia and Bukovina are Catholics. They use the Russian alphabet for their language, and in Bukovina and a portion of Galicia have a phonetic spelling, thus differing largely from Great Russian, even in words that are common to both. Their immigration to America commenced in 1880 as labourers in the coal mines of Pennsylvania and Ohio, and has steadily increased ever since. Although they were the poorest of peasants and labourers, illiterate for the most part and unable to grasp the English langauge or American customs when they arrived, they have rapidly risen in the scale of prosperity and are now rivalling the other nationalities in progress. Greek Ruthenian churches and institutions are being established upon a substantial basis, and their clergy and schools are steadily advancing. They are scattered all over the United States, and there are now (1911) between 489,000 and 500,000 of them, counting immigrants and native born. Their immigration for the past five years has been as follows: 1907, 24,081; 1908, 12,361; 1909, 15,808; 1910, 27,970; 1911, 17,724; being an average of 20,000 a year. They have chiefly settled in the State of Pennsylvania, over half of them being there; but Ohio, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois have large numbers of them. The Greek Rite in the Slavonic language is firmly established through them in the United States, but they suffer greatly from Russian Orthodox endeavours to lead them from the Catholic Church, as well as from frequent internal dissensions (chiefly of an old-world political nature) among themselves. They have 152 Greek Catholic churches, with a Greek clergy consisting of a Greek Catholic bishop who has his seat at Philadelphia, but without diocesan powers as yet, and 127 priests, of whom 9 are Basilian monks. During 1911 Ruthenian Greek Catholic nuns of the Order of St. Basil were introduced. The Ruthenians have flourishing religious mutual benefit societies, which also assist in the building of Greek churches. The "Soyedineniya Greko-Katolicheskikh Bratstv" (Greek Catholic Union) in its senior division has 509 members, brotherhoods or councils and 30,255 members, while the junior division has 226 brotherhoods and 15,200 members; the "Russky Narodny Soyus" (Ruthenian National Union) has 301 brotherhoods and 15,200 members; while the "Obshchestvo Russkikh Bratstv" (Society of Russian Brotherhood) has 129 brotherhoods and 7359 members. There are also many Ruthenians who belong to Slovak organizations. The Ruthenians publish some ten papers, of which the "Amerikansky Russky Vietnik", "Svododa", and "Dushpastyr" are the principal ones. VII. SERBIANS (Srbin; adjective srpski, Serbian, or Servian) This designation applies not only to the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Serbia, but includes the people of the following countries forming a geographical although not a political whole: southern Hungary, the Kingdoms of Serbia and Montenegro, the Turkish Provinces of Kossovo, Western Macedonia, and Novi-Bazar, and the annexed Austrian provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The last two provinces may be said to furnish the shadowy boundary line between the Croatians and the Serbians. The two peoples are ethnologically the same, and the Serbian and Croatian languages are merely two dialects of the same Slavonic tongue. Serbians are sometimes called the Shtokavski, because the Serbian word for "what" is shto, while the Croats use the word cha for "what", and Croatians are called Chakavski. The Croatians are Catholics and use the Roman alphabet (latinica), whilst the Serbians are Eastern Orthodox and use the Cyrillic alphabet (cirilica), with additional signs to express special sounds not found in the Russian. Serbians who happen to be Catholic are called Bunjevaci (disturbers, dissenters). Serbian immigration to the United States did not commence until about 1892, when several hundred Montenegrins and Serbians came with the Dalmatians and settled in California. It began to increase largely in 1903 and was at its highest in 1907. They are largely settled in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Illinois. There are no governmental statistics showing how many Serbians come from Serbia and how many from the surrounding provinces. The Serbian Government has established a special consular office in New York City to look after Serbian immigration. There are now (1911) about 150,000 Serbians in the United States. They are located as follows: New England States, 25,000; Middle Atlantic States, 50,000; Middle Western States, 25,000; Western and Pacific States, 25,000; and the remainder throughout the Southern States and Alaska. They have brought with them their Orthodox clergy, and are at present affiliated with the Russian Orthodox Church here although they expect shortly to have their own national bishop. They now (1911) have in the United States 20 churches (of which five are in Pennsylvania) and 14 clergy, of whom 8 are monks and 6 seculars. They publish eight newspapers in Serbian, of which "Amerikanski Srbobran" of Pittsburg, "Srbobran" of New York, and "Srpski Glasnik" of San Francisco are the most important. They have a large number of church and patriotic societies, of which the Serb Federation "Sloga" (Concord) with 131 drustva or council and over 10,000 members and "Prosvjeta" (Progress), composed of Serbians from Bosnia and Herzegovina, are the most prominent. VIII. SLOVAKS (Slovak; adjective slovensky, Slovak) These occupy the northwestern portion of the Kingdom of Hungary upon the southern slopes of the Carpathian mountains, ranging over a territory comprising the Counties of Poszony, Nyitra, Bars, Hont, Zólyom, Trencsén, Turocz, Arva, Liptö, Szepes, Sáros, Zemplin, Ung, Abauj, Gömör, and Nógrad. A well-defined ethnical line is all that divides the Slovaks from the Ruthenians and the Magyars. Their language is almost the same as the Bohemian, for they received their literature and their mode of writing it from the Bohemians, and even now nearly all the Protestant Slovak literature is from Bohemian sources. It must be remembered however that the Bohemians and Moravians dwell on the northern side of the Carpathian mountains in Austria, whilst the Slovaks are on the south of the Carpathians and are wholly in Hungary. Between the Moravians and the Slovaks, dwelling so near to one another, the relationship was especially close. The Slovak and Moravian people were among those who first heard the story of Christ from the Slavonic apostles Sts. Cyril and Methodius, and at one time their tribes must have extended down to the Danube and the southern Slavs. The Magyars (Hungarians) came in from Asia and the East, and like a wedge divided this group of northern Slavs from those on the south. The Slovaks have had no independent history and have endured successively Polish rule, Magyar conquest, Tatar invasions, German invading colonization, Hussite raids from Bohemia, and the dynastic wars of Hungary. In 1848-49, when revolution and rebellion were in the air, the Hungarians began their war against Austria; the Slovaks in turn rose against the Hungarians for the language and national customs, but on the conclusion of peace, they were again incorporated as part of Hungary without any of their rights recognized. Later they were ruthlessly put down when they refused to carry out the Hungarian decrees, particularly as they had rallied to the support of the Austrian throne. In 1861 the Slovaks presented their famous Memorandum to the Imperial Throne of Austria, praying for a bill of rights and for their autonomous nationality. Stephen Moyses, the distinguished Slovak Catholic Bishop, besought the emperor to grant national and language rights to them. The whole movement awoke popular enthusiasm, Catholics and Protestants working together for the common good. In 1862 high schools were opened for Slovaks; the famous "Slovenska Matica", to publish Slovak books and works of art and to foster the study of the Slovak history and language, was founded; and in 1870 the Catholics also founded the "Society of St. Voytech", which became a powerful helper. Slovak newspapers sprang into existence and 150 reading clubs and libraries were established. After the defeat of the Austrian arms at Sadowa in 1866, pressure was resumed to split the empire into two parts, Austrian and Hungarian, each of which was practically independent. The Slovaks thenceforth came wholly under Hungarian rule. Then the Law of Nationalities was passed which recognized the predominant position of the Magyars, but gave some small recognition to the other minor nationalities, such as the Slovaks, by allowing them to have churches and schools conducted in their own language. In 1878 the active Magyarization of Hungary was undertaken. The doctrine was mooted that a native of the Kingdom of Hungary could not be a patriot unless he spoke, thought, and felt as a Magyar. A Slovak of education who remained true to his ancestry (and it must be remembered that the Slovaks were there long before the Hungarians came) was considered deficient in patriotism. The most advanced political view was that a compromise with the Slovaks was impossible; that there was but one expedient, to wipe them out as far as possible by assimilation with the Magyars. Slovak schools and institutions were ordered to be closed, the charter of the "Matica" was annulled, and its library and rich historical and artistic collections, as well as its funds, were confiscated. Inequalities of every kind before the law were devised for the undoing of the Slovaks and turning them into Hungarians; so much so that one of their authors likened them to the Irish in their troubles. The Hungarian authorities in their endeavour to suppress the Slovak nationality went even to the extent of taking away Slovak children to be brought up as Magyars, and forbade them to use their language in school and church. The 2,000,000 Catholic Slovaks clung to their language and Slavic customs, but the clergy were educated in their seminaries through the medium of the Magyar tongue and required in their parishes to conform to the state idea. Among the 750,000 Protestant Slovaks the Government went even further by taking control of their synods and bishops. Even Slovak family names were changed to Hungarian ones, and preference was only through Hungarians channels. Naturally, religion decayed under the stress and strain of repressed nationality. Slovak priests did not perform their duties with ardour or diligence, but confined themselves to the mere routine of canonical obligation. There are no monks or religious orders among the Slovaks and no provision is made for any kind of community life. Catechetical instruction is at a minimum and is required to be given whenever possible through the medium of the Hungarian language. There is no lack of priests in the Slovak country, yet the practice of solemnizing the reception of the first communion by the children is unknown and many other forms of Catholic devotion are omitted. Even the Holy Rosary Society was dissolved, because its devotions and proceedings and devotions were conducted in Slovak. The result of governmental restriction of any national expression has been a complete lack of initiative on the part of the Slovak priesthood, and it is needless to speak of the result upon their flocks. In the eastern part of the Slovak territory where there were Slovak-speaking Greek Catholics, they fared slightly better in regard to the attempts to make them Hungarians. There the liturgy was Slavonic and the clergy who used the Magyar tongue still were in close touch with their people through the offices of the Church. All this pressure on the part of the authorities tended to produce an active Slovak emigration to America, while bad harvests and taxation also contributed. A few immigrants came to America in 1864 and their success brought others. In the late seventies the Slovak exodus was well marked, and by 1882 it was sufficiently important to be investigated by the Hungarian Minister of the Interior and directions given to repress it. The American immigration figures indicated the first important Slovak influx in 1873 when 1300 immigrants came from Hungary, which rose to 4000 in 1880 and to nearly 15,000 in 1884, most of them settling in the mining and industrial regions of Pennsylvania. At first they came from the Counties of Zemplin, Saros, Szepes, and Ung, where there were also many Ruthenians. They were called "Huns" or "Hankies", and were used at first to fill the places left vacant by strikers. They were very poor and willing to work for little when they arrived, and were accordingly hated by the members of the various unions. The Slovak girls, like the Irish, mostly went into service, and because they had almost no expense for living managed to earn more than the men. Today the Slovaks of America are beginning to possess a national culture and organization, which presents a striking contrast to the cramped development of their kinsmen in Hungary. Their immigration of late years has ranged annually from 52,368 in 1905 to 33,416 in 1910. Altogether it is estimated that there are now some 560,000 Slovaks in the United States, including the native born. They are spread throughout the country, chiefly in the following states: Pennsylvania, 270,000; Ohio, 75,000; Illinois, 50,000; New Jersey, 50,000; New York, 35,000; Connecticut, 20,000; Indiana, 15,000; Missouri, 10,000; whilst they range from 5000 to a few hundreds in the other states. About 450,000 of them are Latin-Rite Catholics, 10,000 Byzantine-Rite Catholics and 95,000 Protestants. The first Slovak Catholic church in the United States was founded by Rev. Joseph Kossalko at Streator, Illinois, and was dedicated 8 Dec., 1883. Following this he also built St. Joseph's Church at Hazleton, Pennsylvania, in 1884. In 1889 Rev. Stephen Furdek founded the Church of St. Ladislas at Cleveland, Ohio, together with a fine parochial school, both of which were dedicated by Bishop Gilmour. The American bishops were anxious to get Slovak priests for the increasing immigration, and Bishop Gilmour sent Father Furdek to Hungary for that purpose. The Hungarian bishops were unwilling to send Slovak priests at first, but as immigration increased they acceded to the request. At present (1911) the Catholic Slovaks have a clergy consisting of one bishop (Rt. Rev. J.M. Koudelka) and 104 priests, and have `34 churches situated as follows: in Pennsylvania, 81 (Dioceses of Altoona, 10; Erie, 4; Harrisburg, 3; Philadelphia, 15; Pittsburg, 35; and Scranton, 14); in Ohio, 14 (in the Diocese of Cleveland, 12; and Columbus, 2); in Illinois, 10 (in the Arch-diocese of Chicago, 7; and Peoria, 3); in New Jersey 11 (in the Diocese of Newark, 7; and Trenton, 4); in New York, 6; and in the States of Connecticut, 3; Indiana, 2; Wisconsin, 2; and Minnesota, Michigan, Missouri, Alabama, and West Virginia, one each. Some of the Slovak church buildings are very fine specimens of church architecture. There are also 36 Slovak parochial schools, that of Our Lady Mary in Cleveland having 750 pupils. They have also introduced and American order of Slovak nuns, the Sisters of Saints Cyril and Methodius, who are established under the direction of Bishop Hoban in the Diocese of Scranton, where they have four schools. The Protestant Slovaks followed the example of the Catholics and established their first church at Streator, Illinois, in 1885, and later founded a church at Minneapolis in 1888, and from 1890 to 1894 three churches in Pennsylvania. They now have in the United States 60 Slovak churches and congregations (of which 28 are in Pennsylvania), with 34 ministers (not including some 5 Presbyterian clergymen), who are organized under the name of "The Slovak Evangelical Lutheran Synod of America". The Slovaks have a large number of organizations. The principal Catholic ones are: Prva Katokícka Slovenská Jednota (First Slovak Catholic Union), for men, 33,000 members; Pennsylvánska Slovenská Rimsko a Grécko Katolícka Jednota (Pennsylvania Slovak Roman and Greek Catholic Union), 7500 members; Prva Katolícka Slovenská Zenská Jednota (First Catholic Slovak Women's Union), 12,000 members; Pennsylvánska Slovenská Zenská Jednota (Pennsylvania Slovak Women's Union), 3500 members; Zivena (Women's League), 6000 members. There are also: Národny Slovensky Spolok (National Slovak Society), which takes in all Slovaks except Jews, 28,000 members; Evanjelícka Slovenská Jednota (Evangelical Lutheran Slovak Union), 8000 members; Kalvinská Slovenská Jednota (Presbyterian Slovak Union), 1000 members; Neodvisly Národny Slovensky Spolok (Independent National Slovak Society), 2000 members. They also have a large and enterprising Press, publishing some fourteen papers. The chief ones are: "Slovensky Denník" (Slovak Journal), a daily, of Pittsburg; "Slovak v Amerike" (Slovak in America), of New York; "Narodne Noviny" (National News), a weekly, of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, with 38,000 circulation; "Jednota" (The Union), also a weekly, of Middleton, Pennsylvania, with 35,000 circulation; and "Bratstvo" (Brotherhood) of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. There are also Protestant and Socialistic journals, whose circulation is small. Among the distinguished Slovaks in the United States may be mentioned Rev. Joseph Murgas of Wilkes-Barre, who, in addition to his work among his people, has perfected several inventions in wireless telegraphy and is favourably known in other scientific matters. IX. SLOVENES (Slovenec; adjective slovenski, Slovenian) These come chiefly from southwestern Austria, from the Provinces of Carniola (Kranjsko; Ger., Krain), Carinthia (Kransjsko; Ger., Kärnten), and Styria (Krain; Ger., Steiermark); as well as from Resia (Resja) and Udine (Videm) in northeastern Italy, and the Coast Lands (Primorsko) of Austria-Hungary. Their neighbours on the southwest are Italians; on the west and north, Germans; on the east, Germans and Magyars; and towards the south, Italians and Croatians. Most of them are bilingual, speaking not only the Slovenian but also the German language. For this reason they are not so readily distinguishable in America as the other Slavs, and have less trouble in assimilating themselves. At home the main centres of their language and literature have been Laibach (Ljubljana), Klagenfurt (Celovec), Graz (Gradec), and Görz (Gorica), the latter city being also largely Italian. In America they are more often known as "Krainer", that being the German adjective of Krain (Carniola), from whence the larger number of them come to the United States; sometimes the word has even been mispronounced and set down as "Griner". The Slovenes became known somewhat early in the history of the United States. Father Frederic Baraga was among the first of them to come here in 1830, and began his missionary work as a priest among the Indians of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, and finally became the first Bishop of Marquette, Michigan. He studied the Indian languages and wrote their grammars and history in his various English, German, and Slovenian works. He also published several catechisms and religious works in Slovenian, and brought over several other Slovenian priests. In Calumet, Michigan, the Slovenes settled as early as 1856; they first appeared in Chicago and in Iowa about 1863, and in 1866 they founded their chief farming colony in Brockway, Minnesota. Here they still preserve their own language and all their minute local peculiarities. They came to Omaha in 1868, and in 1873 their present large colony in Joliet, Illinois, was founded. Their earliest settlement in New York was towards the end of 1878, and gradually their numbers have increased until they have churches in Haverstraw and Rockland Lake, where their language is used. They have also established farm settlements in Iowa, South Dakota, Idaho, Washington, and in additional places in Minnesota. Their very active immigration began in 1892, and has been (1990-1910) at the rate of from 6000 to 9000 annually, but has lately fallen off. The official government statistics class them along with the Croatians. There are now (1911) in the United States a little over 120,000 Slovenes; practically all of them are Catholics, and with no great differences or factions among them. There is a leaning towards Socialism in the large mining and manufacturing centres. In Pennsylvania there are about 30,000; in Ohio, 15,000; in Illinois, 12,000; in Michigan, 8000; in Minnesota, 12,000; in Colorado, 10,000; in Washington, 10,000; in Montana, 5000; and in fact there are Slovenes reported in almost every state and territory except Georgia. Their immigration was caused by the poverty of the people at home, especially as Carniola is a rocky and mountainous district without much fertility, and neglected even from the times of the Turkish wars. Latterly the institution of Raffeisen banks, debt-paying and mutual aid associations introduced among the people by the Catholic party (Slovenska Ljudska Stranka), has diminished immigration and enabled them to live more comfortably at home. The Slovenes are noted for their adaptability, and have given many prominent missionary leaders to the Church in the United States. Among them are Bishop Baraga, Mrak, and Vertin (of Marquette), Stariha (of Lead), and Trobec (of St. Cloud); Monsignori Stibil, Buh, and Plut; Abbot Bernard Locnika, O.S.B.; and many others. There are some 92 Slovenian priests in the United States, and twenty-five Slovenian churches. Many of their churches are quite fine, especially st.Joseph's, Joliet, Illinois; St. Joseph's, Calumet, Michigan; and Sts.Cyril and Methodius, Sheboygan, Wisconsin. There are also mixed parishes where the Slovenes are united with other nationalities, usually with Bohemians, Slovaks, or Germans. There are no exclusively Slovenian religious communities. At St. John's, Minnesota, there are six Slovenian Benedictines, and at Rockland Lake, New York, three Slovenian Franciscans, who are undertaking to establish a Slovenian and Croatian community. From them much of the information herein has been obtained. The Franciscan nuns at Joliet, Illinois, have many Slovenian sisters; at Kansas City, Kansas, there are several Slovenian sisters engaged in school work; and there are some Slovenians among the Notre Dame Sisters of Cleveland, Ohio. Archbishop Ireland of St. Paul, Minnesota, sent to Austria for Slovenian seminarians to finish their education here, and also appointed three Slovenian priests are professors in his diocesan seminary, thus providing a Slovenian- American clergy for their parishes in his province. There are several church and benevolent organizations among the Slovenians in America. The principal ones are: Kranjsko Slovenska Katoliska Jednota (Krainer Slovenian Catholic Union), organized in April, 1894, now having 100 councils and a membership of 12,000; Jugoslovenska Katoliska Jednota (South Slovenian Catholic Union), organized in Jan., 1901, having 90 councils and 8000 members; besides these there are also Slovenska Zapadna Zveza (Slovenian Western Union), with 30 councils and about 3000 members, Drustva Sv. Barbara (St. Barbara Society), with 80 councils, chiefly among miners, and the semi-socialistic Delvaska Podporna Zveza (Workingmen's Benevolent Union) with 25 councils and a considerable membership. There are also Sv. Rafaelova Druzba (St. Raphael's Society), to assist Slovenian immigrants founded by Father Kasimir, O.F.M., and the Society of Sts. Cyril and Methodius to assist Slovenian schools, as well as numerous singing and gymnastic organizations. The Slovenians publish ten newspapers in the United States. The oldest is the Catholic weekly "Amerikanski Slovenec" (American Slovene), established in 1891 at Joliet, and it is the organ of the Krainer Slovenian Catholic Union. "Glas Naroda" (Voice of the People), established in 1892 in New York City, is a daily paper somewhat Liberal in its views, but it is the official organ of the South Slavonic Catholic Union and the St. Barbara Society. "Ave Maria" is a religious monthly published by the Franciscans of Rockland Lake, New York. "Glasnik" (The Herald) is a weekly of Calumet, Michigan; as are "Edinost" (Unity), of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania; "Clevelandska Amerika", of Cleveland, Ohio; "Narodni Vestnik" (People's Messenger), of Duluth, Minnesota; and "Slovenski Narod" (Slovenian People), of Pueblo, Colorado. There are also two purely Socialistic weeklies in Chicago: "Proletarec" (Proletarian) and "Glas Svobode" (Voice of Freedom). ANDREW J. SHIPMAN Anton Martin Slomsek Anton Martin Slom?ek Slom?ek, Anton Martin, Bishop of Lavant, in Maribor, Styria, Austria, noted Slovenian educator, born 1800; died 24 Sept., 1862. The dawn of the nineteenth century found the Slovenian schools in a precarious condition; their number was pitifully small, and the courses they offered were inadequate and unsatisfactory. This deplorable state was due to the fact that the Austrian officials endeavoured to suppress the national language, and, to compass this end, introduced foreign teachers thoroughly distasteful to the people, whom in turn they despised. Moreover, books, magazines, papers, and other educational influences were lacking, not because they would not have been gladly welcomed, but because they were forbidden by the Government in its fear of Panslavism. This situation Bishop Slom?ek was compelled to face. A man of initiative and discernment, the changes he wrought in a short time were wonderful. In the Constitution of 1848, granting national rights long denied, he found his instrument. Following this measure, though only after many futile attempts, he received official sanction to undertake the reform of the schools. The first fruits of his labours were a series of excellent text-books, many from his own pen, which proved powerful factors in the growth and development of religious as well as national education. The founding of the weekly, "Drobtinice" (Crumbs), was his next step. Essays and books on a great variety of subjects, embracing practically every question on which his countrymen stood in need of enlightenment, were published in quick succession, and his vigorous and incisive style, well adapted to the intelligence of his readers, though not lacking scholarly refinement, made his works exceedingly popular. His pastorals and sermons constitute a literature of lasting value. In 1841 he sought to realize a dream of years -- the establishment of a society for the spread of Catholic literature. Unfortunately, the movement was branded as Panslavistic, and failed at the time; but ten years later this organization was effected, and Druzba sv. Mohora began sending a few instructive books to Catholic homes. To-day, a million educational volumes have been distributed among a million and a half of people. Although Slom?ek was ardent and active in the interests of his own race, yet he was admired and loved by great men of other nations, and his kindness and tact eliminated all bitterness from the controversies in which he was forced to engage. Patriotism, the education of his people. their temporal and spiritual welfare, were his inspiring motives, as the non-Catholic Makusev remarks: "Education, based on religion and nationality, was his lofty aim". Humility and childlike simplicity marked his life. His priests, sincerely devoted to him, frequently heard him repeat the words: "When I was born, my mother laid me on a bed of straw, and I desire no better pallet when I die, asking only to be in the state of grace and worthy of salvation". GRAFENANER, Hist. of Slovenian Literature (1862). P. CYRIL ZUPAN. Slotanus, John John Slotanus (SCHLOTTANUS, VAN DER SLOOTIEN), (JOHN GEFFEN) Slotanus, John, polemical writer; born at Geffen, Brabant; died at Cologne, 9 July, 1560. He joined the Dominican order at Cologne about 1525. For many years he ably defended the Faith against the heretics by preaching and writing. Later he taught sacred letters at Cologne, and in 1554 was made a doctor of theology. About this same time he became prior of his convent at Cologne, and as such exercised the offices of censor of the faith and papal inquisitor throughout the Archdiocese of Cologne and the Rhine country. In the discharge of these responsible duties Slotanus came into conflict with the learned Justus Velsius, who in 1556, on account of heretical teachings, was obliged to leave Cologne. The vehement writings which Velsius afterwards published against the Cologne theologians moved Slotanus to write two works in which nearly all the heretical doctrines of his time are discussed with admirable skill. Among his various works those most worthy of mention are: "Disputationum adversus hæreticos liber unus" (Cologne, 1558); "De retinenda fide orthodoxa et catholica adversus hæreses et sectas" (Cologne, 1560); "De barbaris nationibus convertendis ad Christum" (Cologne, 1559). In the last-named work Slotanus witnesses to the ardent missionary zeal which fired the religious men of his time. ECHARD, Script. Ord. Proed., II, 175; HURTER, Nomenclator; MEUSER, Zur Geschichte der Kölner Theologen im 16. Jahrh. in Kath. Zeitschr. für Wissenschaft und Kunst, II (Cologne, 1845), 79 sq.; PAULUS, Kölner Dominicanerschriftsteller a.d. 16. Jahrh. in Katholik II (1897) 238 sq. CHAS. J. CALLAN. Sloth Sloth One of the seven capital sins. In general it means disinclination to labour or exertion. As a capital or deadly vice St. Thomas (II-II:35) calls it sadness in the face of some spiritual good which one has to achieve (Tristitia de bono spirituali). Father Rickaby aptly translates its Latin equivalent acedia (Gr. akedia) by saying that it means the don't-care feeling. A man apprehends the practice of virtue to be beset with difficulties and chafes under the restraints imposed by the service of God. The narrow way stretches wearily before him and his soul grows sluggish and torpid at the thought of the painful life journey. The idea of right living inspires not joy but disgust, because of its laboriousness. This is the notion commonly obtaining, and in this sense sloth is not a specific vice according to the teaching of St. Thomas, but rather a circumstance of all vices. Ordinarily it will not have the malice of mortal sin unless, of course, we conceive it to be so utter that because of it one is willing to bid defiance to some serious obligation. St. Thomas completes his definition of sloth by saying that it is torpor in the presence of spiritual good which is Divine good. In other words, a man is then formally distressed at the prospect of what he must do for God to bring about or keep intact his friendship with God. In this sense sloth is directly opposed to charity. It is then a mortal sin unless the act be lacking in entire advertence or full consent of the will. The trouble attached to maintenance of the inhabiting of God by charity arouses tedium in such a person. He violates, therefore, expressly the first and the greatest of the commandments: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength." (Mark, xii, 30). JOSEPH F. DELANY Slythurst, Thomas Thomas Slythurst Slythrust, Thomas, English confessor, born in Berkshire; died in the Tower of London, 1560. He was B. A. Oxon, 1530; M. A., 1534; B. D., 1543; and supplicated for the degree of D. D., 1554-5, but never took it. He was rector of Chalfont St. Peter, Bucks, from 1545 to 1555, canon of Windsor 1554, rector of Chalfont St. Giles, Bucks, 1555, and first President of Trinity College, Oxford. He was deprived of these three preferments in 1559. On 11 Nov., 1556, he was appointed with others by Convocation to regulate the exercises in theology on the election of Cardinal Pole to the chancellorship. WARTON, Life of Sir Thomas Pope (London, 1772), 359; Catholic Record Society Publications, I (London, 1905-), 118; FOX, Acts and Monuments, VIII (London, 1843-9), 636. JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT. Smalkaldic League Smalkaldic League A politico-religious alliance formally concluded on 27 Feb., 1531, at Smalkalden in Hesse-Nassau, among German Protestant princes and cities for their mutual defence. The compact was entered into for six years, and stipulated that any military attack made upon any one of the confederates on account of religion or under any other pretext was to be considered as directed against them all and resisted in common. The parties to it were: the Landgrave Philip of Hesse; the Elector John of Saxony and his son John Frederick; the dukes Philip of Brunswick-Grubenhagen and Otto, Ernest, and Francis of Brunswick-Lünenburg; Prince Wolfgang of Anhalt; the counts Gebhard and Albrecht of Mansfeld and the towns of Strasburg, Ulm, Constance, Reutlingen, Memmingen, Lindau, Biberach, Isny, Magdeburg, and Bremen. The city of Lübeck joined the league on 3 May, and Bavaria on 24 Oct., 1531. The accession of foreign powers, notably England and France, was solicited, and the alliance of the latter nation secured in 1532. The princes of Saxony and Hesse were appointed military commanders of the confederation, and its military strength fixed at 10,000 infantry and 2000 cavalry. At a meeting held at Smalkalden in Dec., 1535, the alliance was renewed for ten years, and the maintenance of the former military strength decreed, with the stipulation that it should be doubled in case of emergency. In April, 1536, Dukes Ulrich of Würtemberg and Barnim and Philip of Pomerania, the cities of Frankfort, Augsburg, Hamburg, and Hanover joined the league with several other new confederates. An alliance was concluded with Denmark in 1538, while the usual accession of the German Estates which accepted the Reformation continued to strengthen the organization. Confident of its support, the Protestant princes introduced the new religion in numerous districts, suppressed bishoprics, confiscated church property, resisted imperial ordinances to the extent of refusing help against the Turks, and disregarded the decisions of the Imperial Court of Justice. In self-defence against the treasonable machinations of the confederation, a Catholic League was formed in 1538 at Nuremberg under the leadership of the emperor. Both sides now actively prepared for an armed conflict, which seemed imminent. But negotiations carried on at the Diet of Frankfort in 1539 resulted, partly owing to the illness of the Landgrave of Hesse, in the patching up of a temporary peace. The emperor during this respite renewed his earnest but fruitless efforts to effect a religious settlement, while the Smalkaldic confederates continued their violent proceedings against the Catholics, particularly in the territory of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, where Duke Henry was unjustly expelled, and the new religion introduced (1542). It became more and more evident as time went on that a conflict was unavoidable. When, in 1546, the emperor adopted stern measures against some of the confederates, the War of Smalkalden ensued. Although it was mainly a religious conflict between Catholics and Protestants, the denominational lines were not sharply drawn. With Pope Paul III, who promised financial and military assistance, several Protestant princes, the principal among whom was Duke Marice of Saxony, defended the imperial and Catholic cause. The beginning of hostilities was marked nevertheless by the success of the Smalkaldic allies; but division and irresoluteness soon weakened them and caused their ruin in Southern Germany, where princes and cities submitted in rapid succession. The battle of Mühlberg (24 April, 1547) decided the issue in favour of the emperor in the north. The Elector John Frederick of Saxony was captured, and shortly after the Landgrave Philip of Hesse was also forced to submit. The conditions of peace included the transfer of the electoral dignity from the former to his cousin Maurice, the reinstatement of Duke Henry of Wolfenbüttel in his dominions, the restoration of Bishop Julius von Pflug to his See of Naumburg-Zeitz, and a promise demanded of the vanquished to recognize and attend the Council of Trent. The dissolution of the Smalkaldic League followed; the imperial success was complete, but temporary. A few years later another conflict broke out and ended with the triumph of Protestantism. Winckelmann, Der Schmalkald. Bund (1530-32) u. der Nürnberger Religionsfriede (Strasburg, 1892); Hasenclever, Die Politik der Schmalkaldener vor Ausbruch des Schmalkald. Krieges (Marburg, 1903); Berentelg, Der Schmalkald. Krieg in Norddeutschland (Münster, 1908); Janssen, Hist. of the German People, tr. Christie, V (St. Louis, 1903), passim; Pastor, History of the Popes, tr. Kerr, X (St. Louis, 1910), 166 sqq. N.A. Weber Ardo Smaragdus Ardo Smaragdus Hagiographer, died at the Benedictine monastery of Aniane, Herault, in Southern France, March, 843. He entered this monastery when still a boy and was bought up under the direction of Abbot St. Benedict of Aniane. On account of his piety and talents he was ordained and put at the head of the school at his monastery. In 794 he accompanied his abbot to the Council of Frankfort and in 814 was made abbot in place of Benedict, who on the invitation of Louis-le-Debonnaire had taken up his abode at the imperial Court at Aix-la-Chapelle. Smaragdus was honoured as a saint in his monastery. He is the author of a life of St. Benedict of Aniane which he wrote at the request of the monks of Cornelimünster near Aix-la-Chapelle, where Abbot Benedict had died. It was written in 822, and is one of the most reliable hagiological productions of that period. Mabillon edited it in his "Acta SS. of the Benedictine Order" (saeculum IV, I, 192-217), whence it was reprinted in P. L., CIII, 353-84. MICHAEL OTT James Smith James Smith Journalist, b. at Skolland, in the Shetland Isles, about 1790; d. Jan., 1866. He spent his boyhood at Skolland, a small place belonging to his mother, who was a member of a branch of the Bruce family which had settled in Shetland in the sixteenth century. He studied law in Edinburgh, became a solicitor to the Supreme Court there, and married a Catholic lady (a cousin of Bishop Macdonell of the Glengarry clan), the result being his own conversion to Catholicism. Naturally hampered in his career, at that period, by his profession of Catholicism, he turned his attention to literature, and became the pioneer of Catholic journalism in Scotland. In 1832 he originated and edited the "Edinburgh Catholic Magazine", which appeared somewhat intermittently in Scotland until April, 1838, at which date Mr. Smith went to reside in London, and the word "Edinburgh" was dropped from the title of the magazine, the publication of which was continued for some years in London. Mr. Smith, on settling in London, inaugurated the "Catholic Directory" for England, in succession to the old "Laity's Directory", and edited it for many years; and he was also for a short time editor of the "Dublin Review", in 1837. Possessed of considerable gifts both as a speaker and as a writer, he was always ready to put them at the service of the Catholic cause; and during the years of agitation immediately preceding Catholic Emancipation, as well as at a later period, he was one of the most active champions of the Church in England and Scotland. He made a brilliant defence in public of Catholic doctrine when it was violently attacked by certain prominent members of the Established Church of Scotland, and published in this connexion, in 1831, his "Dialogues on the Catholic and Protestant Rules of Faith", between a member of the Protestant Reformation Society and a Catholic layman. He also edited (1838) Challoner's abridgment of Gother's "Papist Misrepresented and Represented", with copious notes. Mr. Smith was father of the Most Rev. William Smith, second Archbishop of St. Andrews and Edinburgh in the restored hierarchy of Scotland, and a distinguished Biblical scholar. GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., S.V.; Catholic Directory for Scotland (1893), 264. D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR Richard Smith Richard Smith Bishop of Chalcedon, second Vicar Apostolic of England; b. at Hanworth, Lincolnshire, Nov., 1568 (not 1566 as commonly stated); d. at Paris, 18 March, 1655. He was educated at Trinity College, Oxford, where he became a Catholic. He was admitted to the English College, Rome, in 1586, studied under Bellarmine, and was ordained priest 7 May 1592. In Feb., 1593, he arrived at Valladolid, where he took the degree of Doctor of Theology, and taught philosophy at the English College till 1598, when he went to Seville as a professor of controversies. In 1603 he went on the English mission, where he made his mark as a missioner. Chosen to represent the case of the secular clergy in the archpriest controversy, he went to Rome, where he opposed Persons, who said of him: "I never dealt with any man in my life more heady and resolute in his opinions". In 1613 he became superior of the small body of English secular priests at Arras College, Paris, who devoted themselves to controversial work. In 1625 he was elected to succeed Dr. Bishop as vicar Apostolic, but the date usually assigned for his consecration as Bishop of Chalcedon (12 Jan., 1625) must be wrong, as he was not elected till 2 Jan. He arrived in England in April, of the same year, residing in Lord Montagu's house at Turvey, Bedfordshire. As vicar Apostolic he came into conflict with the regulars, claiming the rights of an ordinary, but Urban VIII decided (16 Dec., 1627) that he was not an ordinary. In 1628 the Government issued a proclamation for his arrest, and in 1631 he withdrew to Paris, where he lived with Richelieu till the cardinal's death in 1642; then he retired to the convent of the English Augustinian nuns, where he died. He wrote: "An answer to T. Bel's late Challenge" (1605); "The Prudentiall Ballance of Religion", (1609); "Vita Dominae Magdalenae Montis-Acuti" i.e., Viscountess Montagu (1609); "De auctore et essentia Protestanticae Religionis" (1619), English translation, 1621; "Collatio doctrinae Catholicorum et Protestantium" (1622), tr. (1631); "Of the distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points of faith" (1645); "Monita quaedam utilia pro Sacerdotibus, Seminaristis, Missionariis Angliae" (1647); "A Treatise of the best kinde of Confessors" (1651); "Of the all-sufficient Eternal Proposer of Matters of Faith" (1653); "Florum Historiae Ecclesiasticae gentis Anglorum libri septem" (1654). Many unpublished documents relating to his troubled episcopate (an impartial history of which yet remains to be written) are preserved in the Westminster Diocesan Archives. DODD, Church History, III (Brussels vere Wolverhampton, 1737-1742) the account from which most subsequent biographies were derived. See also Tierney's edition of Dodd for further documents; BERINGTON, Memoirs of Panzani (London, 1793); Calendar State Papers: Dom., 1625-1631; BUTLER, Historical Memoirs of English Catholics (London, 1819); SERGEANT, Account of the English Chapter (London, 1853); FULLERTON, Life of Luisa de Carvajal (London, 1873); FOLEY, Records Eng. Prov. S. J., VI (London, 1880); BRADY, Episcopal Succession, III (Rome, 1877), a confused and self-contradictory account with some new facts; ALGER in Dict. Nat. Biog.; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath.; CEDOZ, Couvent de Religieuses Anglaises a Paris (Paris, 1891); Third Douay Diary, C.R.S. Publications, X (London, 1911). EDWIN BURTON Richard Smith Richard Smith Born in Worcestershire, 1500; died at Douai, 9 July, 1563. He was educated at Merton College, Oxford; and, having taken his M.A. degree in 1530, he became registrar of the university in 1532. In 1536 Henry VIII appointed him first Regius Professor of divinity, and he took his doctorate in that subject on 10 July in the same year. He subsequently became master of Whittington College, London; rector of St. Dunstan's- in-the-East; rector of Cuxham, Oxfordshire; principal of St. Alban's Hall; and divinity reader at Magdalen College. Under Edward VI he is said by his opponents to have abjured the pope's authority at St. Paul's Cross (15 May, 1547) and at Oxford, but the accounts of the proceedings are obscure and unreliable. If he yielded at all, he soon recovered and accordingly suffered the loss of his professorship, being succeeded by Peter Martyr, with whom he held a public disputation in 1549. Shortly afterwards he was arrested, but was soon liberated. Going to Louvain, he became professor of divinity there. During Mary's Catholic restoration he regained most of his preferments, and was made royal chaplain and canon of Christ Church. He took a prominent part in the proceedings against Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer. He again lost all his benefices at the change of religion under Elizabeth, and after a short imprisonment in Parker's house he escaped to Douai, where he was appointed by Philip II dean of St. Peter's church. There is no foundation for the slanderous story spread by the Reformers to account for his deprivation of his Oxford professorship. When Douai University was founded on 5 Oct., 1562, he was installed as chancellor and professor of theology, but only lived a few months to fill these offices. He wrote many works, the chief of which are: "Assertion and Defence of the Sacrament of the Altar" (1546); "Defence of the Sacrifice of the Mass" (1547); "Defensio coelibatus sacerdotum" (1550); "Diatriba de hominis justificatione" (1550); "Buckler of the Catholic Faith" (1555-56); "De Missæ Sacrificio" (1562); and several refutations of Calvin, Melanchthon, Jewell, and Beza, all published in 1562. Foster, Alumni Oxonienses, IV (Oxford, 1891); Pits, De illustribus Angliæ Scriptoribus (Paris, 1619); Dodd, Church History, II (Brussels vere Wolverhampton, 1737-42); Gardiner, Letters and Papers of Henry VIII; Cooper, Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v. Edwin Burton Thomas Kilby Smith Thomas Kilby Smith Born at Boston, Mass., 23 Sept., 1820; died at New York, 14 Dec., 1887; eldest son of Captain George Smith and Eliza Bicker Walter. Both his paternal and maternal forefathers were active and prominent in the professional life and in the government of New England. His parents moved to Cincinnati in his early childhood, where he was educated in a military school under O. M. Mitchel, the astronomer, and studied law in the office of Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase. In 1853 he was appointed special agent in the Post Office Department at Washington, and later marshal for the Southern District of Ohio and deputy clerk of Hamilton County. He entered the Union Army, 9 September, 1861, as lieutenant-colonel, and was conspicuous in the Battle of Shiloh, 6 and 7 April, 1862, assuming command of Stuart's Brigade, Sherman's Division, during the second day. As commander of brigade in the 15th and 17th Army Corps, he participated in all the campaigns of the Army of the Tennessee, being also for some months on staff duty with General Grant. Commissioned Brigadier-General of Volunteers, 11 August, 1863, he was assigned on 7 March, 1864, to the command of the detached division of the 17th Army Corps and rendered distinguished service during the Red River Expedition, protecting Admiral Porter's fleet after the disaster of the main army. After the fall of Mobile, he assumed the command of the Department of Southern Alabama and Florida, and then of the Post and District of Maine. He was brevetted Major-General for gallant and meritorious service. In 1866 President Johnson appointed him United States Consul at Panama. After the war he removed to Torresdale, Philadelphia. At the time of his death he was engaged in journalism in New York. On 2 May, 1848, he married Elizabeth Budd, daughter of Dr. William Budd McCullough and Arabella Sanders Piatt, of Cincinnati, Ohio. She was a gifted and devout woman, and through her influence and that of the venerable archbishop Purcell he became a Catholic some years before his death. He was remarkable for his facility of expression, distinguished personal appearance, and courtly bearing. He left five sons and three daughters. SMITH, Life and Letters of Thomas Kilby Smith (New York, 1898). WALTER GEORGE SMITH Smyrna Smyrna LATIN ARCHDIOCESE OF SMYRNA (SMYRNENSIS), in Asia Minor. The city of Smyrna rises like an amphitheatre on the gulf which bears its name. It is the capital of the vilayet of Aïdin and the starting-point of several railways; it has a population of at least 300,000, of whom 150,000 are Greeks. There are also numerous Jews and Armenians and almost 10,000 European Catholics. It was founded more than 1000 years B.C. by colonists from Lesbos who had expelled the Leleges, at a place now called Bournabat, about an hour's distance from the present Smyrna. Shortly before 688 B.C. it was captured by the Ionians, under whose rule it became a very rich and powerful city (Herodotus, I, 150). About 580 B.C. it was destroyed by Alyattes, King of Lydia. Nearly 300 years afterwards Antigonus (323-301 B.C.), and then Lysimachus, undertook to rebuild it on its present site. Subsequently comprised in the Kingdom of Pergamus, it was ceded in 133 B.C. to the Romans. These built there a judiciary conventus and a mint. Smyrna had a celebrated school of rhetoric, was one of the cities which had the title of metropolis, and in which the concilium festivum of Asia was celebrated. Demolished by an earthquake in A.D. 178 and 180, it was rebuilt by Marcus Aurelius. In 673 it was captured by a fleet of Arab Mussulmans. Under the inspiration of Clement VI the Latins captured it from the Mussulmans in 1344 and held it until 1402, when Tamerlane destroyed it after slaying the inhabitants. In 1424 the Turks captured it and, save for a brief occupation by the Venetians in 1472, it has since belonged to them. Christianity was preached to the inhabitants at an early date. As early as the year 93, there existed a Christian community directed by a bishop for whom St. John in the Apocalypse (i, II; ii, 8-11) has only words of praise. There are extant two letters written early in the second century from Troas by St. Ignatius of Antioch to those of Smyrna and to Polycarp, their bishop. Through these letters and those of the Christians of Smyrna to the city of Philomelium, we know of two ladies of high rank who belonged to the Church of Smyrna. There were other Christians in the vicinity of the city and dependent on it to whom St. Polycarp wrote letters (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", V, xxiv). When Polycarp was martyred (23 February), the Church of Smyrna sent an encyclical concerning his death to the Church of Philomelium and others. The "Vita Polycarpi" attributed to St. Pionius, a priest of Smyrna martyred in 250, contains a list of the first bishops: Strataes; Bucolus; Polycarp; Papirius; Camerius; Eudaemon (250), who apostatized during the persecution of Decius; Thraseas of Eumenia, martyr, who was buried at Smyrna. Noctos, a Modalist heretic of the second century, was a native of the city as were also Sts. Pothinus and Irenaeus of Lyons. Mention should also be made of another martyr, St. Dioscorides, venerated on 21 May. Among the Greek bishops, a list of whom appears in Le Quien, (Oriens Christ., I, 737-46), was Metrophanes, the great opponent of Photius, who laboured in the revision of the "Octoekos", a Greek liturgical book. The Latin See of Smyrna was created by Clement VI in 1346 and had an uninterrupted succession of titulars until the seventeenth century. This was the beginning of the Vicariate Apostolic of Asia Minor, or of Smyrna, of vast extent. In 1818 Pius VII established the Archdiocese of Smyrna, at the same time retaining the vicariate Apostolic, the jurisdiction of which was wider. Its limits were those of the vicariates Apostolic of Mesopotamia, Syria, and Constantinople. The archdiocese had 17,000 Latin Catholics, some Greek Melchites, called Alepi, and Armenians under special organization. There are: 19 secular priests; 55 regulars; 8 parishes, of which 4 are in Smyrna; 14 churches with resident priests and 12 without priests; 25 primary schools with 2500 pupils, 8 colleges or academies with 800 pupils; 2 hospitals; and 4 orphanages. The religious men in the archdiocese or the vicariate Apostolic are Franciscans, Capuchins, Lazarists, Dominicans, Salesians of Don Bosco, Assumptionists (at Koniah), Brothers of the Christian Schools, and Marist Brothers (at Metellin). Religious communities of women are the Carmelites, Sisters of Charity (13 houses with more than 100 sisters), Sisters of Sion, Dominicans of Ivrée, Sisters of St. Joseph, and Oblates of the Assumption. S. VAILHÉ Snorri Sturluson Snorri Sturluson Historian, born at Hvammr, 1178; died 1241. Snorri, who was the son of Sturla Thortsson (d. 1182), was the most important Icelandic historian of the Middle Ages. In him were united the experienced statesman and the many-sided scholar. As a child he went to the school of Saemund the Wise at Oddi, of which, at that time, Saemund's grandson Ján Loptsson was the head. On his father's side Ján was related to the most distinguished families of Iceland, while by his mother Thora he was connected with the royal family of Norway. Under this skillful teacher Snorri was thoroughly trained in many branches of knowledge, but he learned especially the old northern belief in the gods, the saga concerning Odin, and Scandinavian history. By a rich alliance Snorri obtained the money to take a leading part in politics, but his political course brought him many dangerous enemies, among whom King Haakon of Norway was the most powerful, and he was finally murdered at the king's instigation. Snorri's importance rests on his literary works of which "Heimskringla" (the world) is the most important, since it is the chief authority for the early history of Iceland and Scandinavia. However, it does not contain reliable statements until the history, which extends to 1177, reaches a late period, while the descriptions of the primitive era are largely vague narrations of sagas. The Sturlunga-Saga, which shows more of the local colouring of Iceland, was probably only partly the work of Snorri. On the other hand he is probably the author of the Younger Edda called "Snorra-Edda", which was intended as a textbook of the art of poetry. Its first part, "Gylfaginning" relates the mythology of the North in an interesting, pictorial manner, and is a compilation of the songs of the early scalds, the songs of the common people, sagas, and probably his own poetic ideas. PIUS WITTMAN Ven. Peter Snow Ven. Peter Snow English martyr, suffered at York, 15 June, 1598. He was born at or near Ripon and arrived at the English College, Reims, 17 April, 1589, receiving the first tonsure and minor orders 18 August, 1590, the subdiaconate at Laon on 22 September, and the diaconate and priesthood at Soissons on 30 and 31 March, 1591. He left for England on the following 15 May. He was arrested about 1 May, 1598, when on his way to York with Venerable Ralph Grimston of Nidd. Both were shortly after condemned, Snow of treason as being a priest and Grimston of felony, for having aided and assisted him, and, it is said, having attempted to prevent his apprehension. JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT Sobaipura Indians Sobaipura Indians Once an important tribe of the Piman branch of the great Shoshonean linguistic stock, occupying the territory of the Santa Cruz and San Pedro Rivers, in southeastern Arizona and adjacent portion of Sonora, Mexico. In dialect and general custom they seem to have closely resembled the Pápago, by whom and by the closely cognate Pima most of them were finally absorbed. Their principle centre was Bac or Vaaki, later San Xavier Del Bac, on Santa Cruz River, nine miles south from the present Tucson, Arizona. Here they were visited in 1692 by the pioneer Jesuit explorer of the southwest, Father Eusebio Kino, who in 1699 began the church from which the mission took its name. Other Jesuit mission foundations in the same tribe were (Santa Maria de) Suamca, just inside the Sonora line, established also by Kino about the same time, and San Miguel de Guevavi, founded in 1732 near the present Nogales, Arizona, all three missions being upon the Santa Cruz River. There were also several visiting stations. The missions shared the misfortunes attending those of the Pima and Pápago, but continued to exist until a few years after the expulsion of the Jesuits in 1767. Before the end of the century the tribe itself had disappeared, and in later years San Xavier appears as a Pápago settlement. According to tradition the tribe was destroyed about the year 1790 by the attacks of the wild Apache, by whom a part were carried off, while others were forced to incorporate with the Pápago and Pima (q.v.). JAMES MOONEY John Sobieski John Sobieski Born at Olesko in 1629; died at Wilanow, 1696; son of James, Castellan of Cracow and descended by his mother from the heroic Zolkiewski, who died in battle at Cecora. His elder brother Mark was his companion in arms from the time of the great Cossack rebellion (1648), and fought at Zbaraz, Beresteczko, and lastly at Batoh where, after being taken prisoner, he was murdered by the Tatars. John, the last of all the family, accompanied Czarniecki in the expedition to Denmark; then, under George Lubomirski, he fought the Muscovites at Cudnow. Lubomirski revolting, he remained faithful to the king (John Casimir), became successively Field Hetman, Grand Marshal, and -- after Revera Potocki's death -- Grand Hetman or Commander-in-chief. His first exploit as Hetman was in Podhajce, where, besieged by an army of Cossacks and Tatars, he at his own expense raised 8000 men and stored the place with wheat, baffling the foe so completely that they retired with great loss. When, in 1672, under Michael Wisniowiecki's reign, the Turks seized Kamieniec, Sobieski beat them again and again, till at the crowning victory of Chocim they lost 20,000 men and a great many guns. This gave Poland breathing space, and Sobieski became a national hero, so that, King Michael dying at that time, he was unanimously elected king in 1674. Before his coronation he was forced to drive back the Turkish hordes, that had once more invaded the country; he beat them at Lemberg in 1675, arriving in time to raise siege of Trembowla, and to save Chrzanowski and his heroic wife, its defenders. Scarcely crowned, he hastened to fight in the Ruthenian provinces. Having too few soldiers (20,000) to attack the Turks, who were ten to one, he wore them out, entrenching himself at Zurawno, letting the enemy hem him in for a fortnight, extricating himself with marvellous skill and courage, and finally regaining by treaty a good part of the Ukraine. For some time there was peace: the Turks had learned to dread the "Unvanquished Northern Lion", and Poland, too was exhausted. But soon the Sultan turned his arms against Austria. Passing through Hungary, a great part which had for one hundred and fifty years been in Turkish hands, and enormous army, reckoned at from 210,000 to 300,000 men (the latter figures are Sobieski's) marched forward. The Emperor Leopold fled from Vienna, and begged Sobieski's aid, which the papal nuncio also implored. Though dissuaded by Louis XIV, whose policy was always hostile to Austria, Sobieski hesitated not a instant. Meanwhile (July, 1683) the Grand Vizier Kara Mustapha, had arrived before Vienna, and laid siege to the city, defended by the valiant Imperial General Count Stahremberg, with a garrison of only 15,000 men, exposed to the horrors of disease and fire, as well as to hostile attacks. Sobieski started to the rescue in August, taking his son James with him; passing by Our Lady's sanctuary at Czefistochowa, the troops prayed for a blessing on their arms; and in the beginning of September, having crossed the Danube and joined forces with the German armies under John George, Elector of Saxony, and Prince Charles of Lorraine, they approached Vienna. On 11 Sept., Sobieski was on the heights of Kahlenberg, near the city, and the next day he gave battle in the plain below, with an army of not more than 76,000 men, the German forming the left wing and the Pole under Hetmans Jahonowski and Sieniawski, with General Katski in command of the artillery, forming the right. The hussars charged with their usual impetuosity, but the dense masses of the foe were impenetrable. Their retreat was taken for flight by the Turks, who rushed forward in pursuit; the hussars turned upon them with reinforcements and charged again, when their shouts made known that the "Northern Lion" was on the field and the Turks fled, panic-stricken, with Sobieski's horsemen still in pursuit. Still the battle raged for a time along all the line; both sides fought bravely, and the king was everywhere commanding, fighting, encouraging his men and urging them forward. He was the first to storm the camp: Kara Mustapha had escaped with his life, but he received the bow-string in Belgrade some months later. The Turks were routed, Vienna and Christendom saved, and the news sent to the pope and along with the Standard of the Prophet, taken by Sobieski, who himself had heard Mass in the morning. Prostrate with outstretched arms, he declared that it was God's cause he was fighting for, and ascribed the victory (Veni, vidi, Deus vicit -- his letter to Innocent XI) to Him alone. Next day he entered Vienna, acclaimed by the people as their saviour. Leopold, displeased that the Polish king should have all the glory, condescended to visit and thank him, but treated his son James and the Polish hetmans with extreme and haughty coldness. Sobieski, though deeply offended, pursued the Turks into Hungary, attacked and took Ostrzyhom after the a second battle, and returned to winter in Poland, with immense spoils taken in the Turkish camp. These and the glory shed upon the nation were all the immediate advantages of the great victory. The Ottoman danger had vanished forever. The war still went on: step by step the foe was driven back, and sixteen years later Kamieniec and the whole of Podolia were restored to Poland. But Sobieski did not live to see this triumph. In vain had he again and again attempted to retake Kamieniec, and even had built a stronghold to destroy its strategic value; this fortress enabled the Tatars to raid the Ruthenian provinces upon several occasions, even to the gates of Lemberg. He was also forced by treaty to give up Kieff to Russia in 1686; nor did he succeed in securing the crown for his son James. His last days were spent in the bosom of his family, at his castle of Wilanow, where he died in 1696, broken down by political strife as much as by illness. His wife, a Frenchwoman, the widow of John Zamoyski, Marie-Casimire, though not worthy of so great a hero, was tenderly beloved by him, as his letters show: she influenced him greatly and not always wisely. His family is now extinct. Charles Edward, the Young Pretender, was his great-grandson -- his son James' daughter, Clementine, having married James Stuart in 1719. S. TARNOWSKI Socialism Socialism A system of social and economic organization that would substitute state monopoly for private ownership of the sources of production and means of distribution, and would concentrate under the control of the secular governing authority the chief activities of human life. The term is often used vaguely to indicate any increase of collective control over individual action, or even any revolt of the dispossessed against the rule of the possessing classes. But these are undue extensions of the term, leading to much confusion of thought. State control and even state ownership are not necessarily Socialism: they become so only when they result in or tend towards the prohibition of private ownership not only of "natural monopolies", but also of all the sources of wealth. Nor is mere revolt against economic inequality Socialism: it may be Anarchism (see ANARCHY); it may be mere Utopianism (see COMMUNISM); it may be a just resistance to oppression. Nor is it merely a proposal to make such economic changes in the social structure as would banish poverty. Socialism is this (see COLLECTIVISM) and much more. It is also a philosophy of social life and action, regarding all human activities from a definite economic standpoint. Moreover modern Socialism is not a mere arbitrary exercise at state-building, but a deliberate attempt to relieve, on explicit principles, the existing social conditions, which are regarded as intolerable. The great inequalities of human life and opportunity, produced by the excessive concentration of wealth in the hands of a comparatively small section of the community, have been the cause and still are the stimulus of what is called the Socialistic movement. But, in order to understand fully what Socialism is and what it implies, it is necessary first to glance at the history of the movement, then to examine its philosophical and religious tendencies, and finally to consider how far these may be, and actually have proved to be, incompatible with Christian thought and life. The first requirement is to understand the origin and growth of the movement. It has been customary among writers of the Socialist movement to begin with references to Utopian theories of the classical and Renaissance periods, to Plato's "Republic", Plutarch's "Life of Lycurgus", More's "Utopia", Campanella's "City of the Sun", Hall's "Mundus alter et idem", and the like. Thence the line of thought is traced through the French writers of the eighteenth century, Meslier, Monterquieu, d'Argenson, Morelly, Rousseau, Mably, till, with Linguet and Necker, the eve of the Revolution is reached. In a sense, the modern movement has its roots in the ideas of these creators of ideal commonwealths. Yet there is a gulf fixed between the modern Socialists and the older Utopists. Their schemes were mainly directed towards the establishment of Communism, or rather, Communism was the idea that gave life to their fancied states (see COMMUNISM). But the Collectivist idea, which is the economic basis of modern Socialism (See COLLECTIVISM), really emerges only with "Gracchus" Babeuf and his paper, "The tribune of the People", in 1794. In the manifesto issued by him and his fellow-conspirators, "Les Egaux", is to be found a clear vision of the collective organization of society, such as would be largely accepted by most modern Socialists. Babeuf was guillotined by the Directory, and his party suppressed. Meanwhile, in 1793, Godwin in England had published his "Enquiry Concerning Political Justice", a work which, though inculcating Anarchist-Communism (see ANARCHY) rather than Collectivism, had much influence on Robert Owen and the school of Determinist Socialists who succeeded him. But a small group of English writers in the early years of the nineteenth century had really more to do with the development of Socialist thought than had either Owen's attempts to found ideal communities, at New Lanark and elsewhere, or the contemporary theories and practice of Saint-Simon and Fourier in France. These English writers, the earliest of whom, Dr. Charles Hall, first put forward that idea of a dominant industrial and social "system", which is the pervading conception of modern Socialism, worked out the various basic principles of Socialism, which Marx afterwards appropriated and combined. Robert Thompson, Ogilvie, Hodgkin, Gray, above all William Carpenter, elaborated the theories of "surplus value", of "production for profit", of "class-war", of the ever-increasing exploitation of the poor by the rich, which are the stuff of Marx's "Das Kapital", that "old clothes-shop of ideas culled from Berlin, Paris, and London". For indeed, this famous work is really nothing more than a dexterous combination of Hegelian Evolutionism, of French Revolutionism, and of the economic theories elaborated by Ricardo, on the one hand, and this group of English theorists on the other. Yet the services of Karl Marx and of his friend and brother-Hebrew, Friedrich Engels, to the cause of Socialism must not be underrated. These two writers came upon the scene just when the Socialist movement was at its lowest ebb. In England the work of Robert Owen had been overlaid by the Chartist movement and its apparent failure, while the writings of the economists mentioned above had had but little immediate influence. In France the Saint-Simonians and the Fourierists had disgusted everyone by the moral collapse of their systems. In Germany Lassalle had so far devoted his brilliant energies merely to Republicanism and philosophy. But in 1848 Marx and Engels published the "Communist Manifesto", and, mere rhetoric as it was, this document was the beginning of modern "scientific Socialism". The influence of Proudhon and of the Revolutionary spirit of the times pervades the whole manifesto: the economic analysis of society was to be grafted on later. But already there appear the ideas of "the materialistic conception of history", of "the bourgeoisie" and "the proletariat", and of "class-war". After 1848, in his exile in London, Marx studied, and wrote, and organized with two results: first, the foundation of "The International Workingmen's Association", in 1864; second, the publication of the first volume of "Das Kapital", in 1867. It is not easy to judge which has had the more lasting effect upon the Socialist movement. "The International" gave to the movement its world-wide character; "Das Kapital" elaborated and systematized the philosophic and economic doctrine which is still the creed of the immense majority of Socialists. "Proletarians of all lands, unite!" the sentence with which the Communist Manifesto of 1848 concludes, became a reality with the foundation of the International. For the first time since the disruption of Christendom an organization took shape which had for its object the union of the major portion of all nations upon a common basis. It was not so widely supported as both its upholders believed and the frightened moneyed interests imagined. Nor had this first organization any promise of stability. From the outset the influence of Marx steadily grew, but it was confronted by the opposition of Bakunin and the Anarchist school. By 1876 the International was even formally at an end. But it had done its work: the organized working classes of all Europe had realized the international nature both of their own grievances and of capitalism, and when, in 1889, the first International Congress of Socialist and Trade-Union delegates met at Paris, a "New International" came into being which exists with unimpaired or, rather, with enhanced energy to the present day. Since that first meeting seven others have been held at intervals of three or four years, at which there has been a steady growth in the number of delegates present, the variety of nationalities represented, and the extent of the Socialistic influence over its deliberations. In 1900, an International Socialist Bureau was established at Brussels, with the purpose of Solidifying and strengthening the international character of the movement. Since 1904, an Inter-Parliamentary Socialist Committee has given further support to the work of the bureau. To-day the international nature of the Socialistic movement is an axiom both within and without its ranks; an axiom that must not be forgotten in the estimation both of the strength and of the trend of the movement. To the International, then, modern Socialism owes much of its present power. To "Das Kapital" it owes such intellectual coherence as it still possesses. The success of this book was immediate and considerable. It has been translated into many languages, epitomized by many hands, criticized, discussed, and eulogized. Thousands who would style themselves Marxians and would refer to "Das Kapital" as "The Bible of Socialism", and the irrefragable basis of their creed, have very probably never seen the original work, nor have even read it in translation. Marx himself published only the first volume; the second was published under Engels' editorship in 1885, two years after the death of Marx; a third was elaborated by Engels from Marx's notes in 1895; a fourth was projected but never accomplished. But the influence of this torso has been immense. With consummate skill Marx gathered together and worked up the ideas and evidence that had originated with others, or were the floating notions of the movement; with the result that the new international organization had ready to hand a body of doctrine to promulgate, the various national Socialist parties a common theory and programme for which to work. And promulgated it was, with a devotion and at times a childlike faith that had no slight resemblance to religious propaganda. It has been severely and destructively criticized by economists of many schools, many of its leading doctrines have been explicitly abandoned by the Socialist leaders in different countries, some are now hardly defended even by those leaders who label themselves "Marxian". Yet the influence of the book persists. The main doctrines of Marxism are still the stuff of popular Socialist belief in all countries, are still put forward in scarcely modified form in the copious literature produced for popular consumption, are still enunciated or implied in popular addresses even by some of the very leaders who have abandoned them in serious controversy. In spite of the growth of Revisionism in Germany, of Syndicalism in France, and of Fabian Expertism in England, it is still accurate to maintain that the vast majority of Socialists, the rank and file of the movement in all countries, are adherents of the Marxian doctrine, with all its materialistic philosophy, its evolutionary immorality, its disruptive political and social analysis, its class-conscious economics. In Socialism, to-day, as in most departments of human thought, the leading writers display a marked shyness of fundamental analysis: "The domain of Socialist thought", says Lagardelle, has become "an intellectual desert." Its protagonists are largely occupied, either in elaborating schemes of social reform, which not infrequently present no exclusively socialist characteristics, or else in apologizing for and disavowing inconvenient applications by earlier leaders, of socialist philosophy to the domain of religion and ethics. Nevertheless, in so far as the International movement remains definitely Socialist at all, the formulae of its propaganda and the creed of its popular adherents are predominantly the reflection of those put forward in "Das Kapital" in 1867. Moreover, during all this period of growth of the modern Socialist movement, two other parallel movements in all countries have at once supplemented and counterpoised it. These are trade-unionism and co-operation. There is no inherent reason why either of these movements should lead towards Socialism: properly conducted and developed, both should render unnecessary anything that can correctly be styled "Socialism". But, as a matter of fact, both these excellent movements, owing to unwise opposition by the dominant capitalism, on the one hand, and indifference in the Churches on the other, are menaced by Socialism, and may eventually be captured by the more intelligent and energetic Socialists and turned to serve the ends of Socialism. The training in mutual aid and interdependence, as well as in self-government and business habits, which the leaders of the wage-earners have received in both trade-unionism and the co-operative movements, while it might be of incalculable benefit in the formation of the needed Christian democracy, has so far been effective largely in demonstrating the power that is given by organization and numbers. And the leaders of Socialism have not been slow to emphasize the lesson and to extend the argument, with sufficient plausibility, towards state monopoly and the absolutism of the majority. The logic of their argument has, it is true, been challenged, in recent years, in Europe by the rise of the great Catholic trade-union and co-operative organizations. But in English-speaking nations this is yet to come, and both co-operation and trade-unionism are allowed to drift into the grip of the Socialist movement, with the result that what might become a most effective alternative for Collectivism remains to-day its nursery and its support. Parallel with the International movement has run the local propaganda in various countries, in each of which the movement has taken its colour from the national characteristics; a process which has continued, until to-day it is sometimes difficult to realize that the different bodies who are represented in the International Congresses form part of the same agitation. In Germany, the fatherland of dogmatic Socialism, the movement first took shape in 1862. In that year Ferdinand Lassalle, the brilliant and wealthy young Jewish lawyer, delivered a lecture to an artisans' association at Berlin. Lassalle was fined by the authorities for his temerity, but "The Working Men's Programme", as the lecture was styled, resulted in The Universal German Working Men's Association, which was founded at Leipzig under his influence the following year. Lassalle commenced a stormy progress throughout Germany, lecturing, organizing, writing. The movement did not grow at first with the rapidity he had expected, and he himself was killed in a duel in 1864. But his tragic death aroused interest, and The Working Men's Association grew steadily till, in 1869, reinforced by the adhesion of the various organizations which had grown out of Marx's propaganda, it became, at Eisenach, the Socialist Democratic Working Men's Party. Liebknecht, Bebel, and Singer, all Marxians, were its chief leaders. The two former were imprisoned for treason in 1870; but in 1874 ten members of the party, including the two leaders, were returned to the Reichstag by 450,000 votes. The Government attempted repression, with the usual result of consolidating and strengthening the movement. In 1875 was held the celebrated congress at Gotha, at which was drawn up the programme that formed the basis of the party. Three years later an attempt upon the emperor's life was made the excuse for renewed repression. But it was in vain. In spite of alternate persecution and essays in state Socialism, on the part of Bismarck, the power in 1890 and since then the party has grown rapidly, and is now the strongest political body in Germany. In 18909 Edward Bernstein, who had come under the influence of the Fabians in England since 1888, started the "Revisionist" movement, which, while attempting to concentrate the energies of the party more definitely upon specific reforms and "revising" to extinction many of the most cherished doctrines of Marxism, has yet been subordinated to the practical exigencies of politics. To all appearance the Socialist Party is stronger to-day than ever. The elections of 1907 brought out 3,258,968 votes in its favour; those of January, 1912, gave it 110 seats out of a total of 307 in the Reichstag -- a gain of more than 100 per cent over its last previous representation (53 seats). The Marxian "Erfurt Programme", adopted in 1891, is still the official creed of the Party. But the "Revisionist" policy is obviously gaining ground and, if the Stuttgart Congress of 1907 be any indication, is rapidly transforming the revolutionary Marxist party into an opportunist body devoted to specific social reforms. In France the progress of Socialism has been upon different lines. After the collapse of Saint-Simonism and Fourierism, came the agitation of Louis Blanc in 1848, with his doctrine of "The Right to Work". But this was side-tracked by the triumphant politicians into the scandalous "National Workshops", which were probably deliberately established on wrong lines in order to bring ridicule upon the agitation. Blanc was driven into exile, and French Socialism lay dormant till the ruin of Imperialism in 1870 and the outbreak of the Commune in 1871. This rising was suppressed with a ferocity that far surpassed the wildest excesses of the Communards; 20,000 men are said to have been shot in cold blood, many of whom were certainly innocent, while not a few were thrown alive in the common burial pits. But this savagery, though it temporarily quelled the revolution, did nothing to obviate the Socialist movement. At first many of the scattered leaders declared for Anarchism, but soon most of them abandoned it as impracticable and threw their energies into the propagation of Marxian Socialism. In 1879 the amnesty permitted Jules Guesde, Brousse, Malon, and other leaders to return. In 1881, after the Anarchist-Communist group under Kropotkin and Reclus had seceded, two parties came into existence, the opportunist Alliance Socialiste Republicaine, and the Marxian Parti Ouvrier Socialiste Revolutionaire de France. But these parties soon split up in others. Guesde led, and still leads, the Irreconcilables; Jaures and Millerand have been the leaders of the Parliamentarians; Brousse, Blanqui, and others have formed their several communistic groups. In 1906, however, largely owing to the influence of Jaures, the less extreme parties united again to form Le Parti Socialiste Unifie. This body is but loosely formed of various irreconcilable groups and includes Anarchists like Herve, Marxists like Guesde, Syndicalists like Lagardelle, Opportunists like Millerand, all of whom Jaures endeavours, with but slight success, to maintain in harmony. For right across the Marxian doctrinairianism and the opportunism of the parliamentary group has driven the recent Revolutionary Syndicalist movement. This, which is really Anarchist-Communism working through trade-unionism, is a movement distrustful of parliamentary systems, favourable to violence, tending towards destructive revolution. The Confederation Generale du Travail is rapidly absorbing the Socialist movement in France, or at least robbing it of the ardent element that gives it life. In the British Isles the Socialist movement has had a less stormy career. After the collapse of Owenism and Chartist movement, the practical genius of the nation directed its chief reform energies towards the consolidation of the trade unions and the building up of the great co-operative enterprise. Steadily, for some forty years, the trade-union leaders worked at the strenghening of their respective organizations, which, with their dual character of friendly societies and professional associations, had no small part in training the working classes in habits of combination for common ends. And this lesson was emphasized and enlarged by the Co-operative movement, which, springing from the tiny efforts of the Rochdale Pioneers, spread throughout the country, till it is now one of the mightiest business organizations in the world. In this movement many a labour leader learnt habits of business and of successful committee work that enabled him later on to deal on equal, or even on advantageous, terms with the representatives of the owning classes. But during all this period of training the Socialist movement proper lay dormant. It was not until 1884, with the foundation of the strictly Marxian Social Democratic Federation by H. M. Hyndman, that the Socialist propaganda took active in England. It did not achieve any great immediate success, not has it ever since shown signs of appealing widely to the English temperament. But it was a beginning, and it was followed by other, more inclusive, organizations. A few months after its foundation the Socialist League, led by William Morris, seceded from it and had a brief and stormy existence. In 1893, at Bradford, the "Independent Labour Party" was formed under the leadership of J. Keir Hardie, with the direct purpose of carrying Socialism into politics. Attached to it were two weekly papers, "The Clarion" and "The Labour Leader"; the former of which, by its sale of over a million copies of an able little manual, "Merrie England", had no small part in the diffusion of popular Socialism. All these three bodies were popular Socialism. All these three bodies were Marxian in doctrine and largely working class in membership. But, as early as 1883, a group of middle-class students had joined together as The Fabian Society. This body, while calling itself Socialist, rejected the Marxian in favour of Jevonsian economics, and devoted itself to the social education of the public by means of lectures, pamphlets and books, and to the spread of Collectivist ideas by the "permeation" of public bodies and political parties. Immense as have been its achievements in this direction, its constant preoccupation with practical measures of reform and its contact with organized party politics have led it rather in the direction of the "Servile State" than of the Socialist Commonwealth. But the united efforts of the various Socialist bodies, in concert with trade unionism, resulted, in 1899, in the formation of the Labour Representation Committee which, seven years later, had developed into the Labour Party, with about thirty representatives in the House of Commons. Already, however, a few years' practical acquaintance with party politics has diminished the Socialist orthodoxy of the Labour Party, and it shows signs of becoming absorbed in the details of party contention. Significant commentaries appeared in the summer of 1911 and in the spring of 1912; industrial disturbances, singularly resembling French Syndicalism, occurred spontaneously in most commercial and mining centres, and the whole Labour movement in the British Isles has reverted to the Revolutionary type that last appeared in 1889. In every European nation the Socialist movement has followed, more or less faithfully, one of the three preceding types. In Belgium, Switzerland, Denmark, and Italy it is predominantly parliamentary: in Russia, Spain, and Portugal it displays a more bitterly revolutionary character. But everywhere the two tendencies, parliamentary and revolutionary, struggle for the upper hand; now one, now the other becoming predominant. Nor is the movement in the United States any exception to the rule. It began about 1849, purely as a movement among the German and other immigrants and, in spite of the migration of the old International to New York in 1872, had but little effect upon the native population till the Henry George movement of 1886. Even then jealousies and divisions restricted its action, till the reorganization of the Socialist Labour Party at Chicago in 1889. Since then the movement has spread rapidly. In 1897 appeared the Social Democracy of America, which, uniting with the majority of the Socialist Labour Party in 1901, formed the present rapidly growing Socialist Party. In the United States the movement is still strongly Marxian in character, though a Revisionist school is growing up, somewhat on the lines of the English Fabian movement, under the influence of writers like Edmond Kelly, Morris Hillquit, and Professors Ely and Zuelin. But the main body is still crudely Revolutionary, and is likely to remain so until the political democracy of the nation is more perfectly reflected in its economic conditions. These main points in the history of Socialism lead up to an examination of its spirit and intention. The best idealism of earlier times was fixed upon the soul rather than upon the body: exactly the opposite is the case with Socialism. Social questions are almost entirely questions of the body -- public health, sanitation, housing, factory conditions, infant mortality, employment of women, hours of work, rates of wages, accidents, unemployment, pauperism, old age pensions, sickness, infirmity, lunacy, feeble-mindedness, intemperance, prostitution, physical deterioration. All these are excellent ends for activity in themselves, but all of them are mainly concerned with the care or cure of the body. To use a Catholic phrase, they are opportunities for corporal works of mercy, which may lack the spiritual intention that would make them Christian. The material may be made a means to the spiritual, but is not to be considered an end in itself. This world is a place of probation, and the time is short. Man is here for a definite purpose, a purpose which transcends the limits of this mortal life, and his first business is to realize this purpose and carry it out with whatever help and guidance he may find. The purpose is a spiritual one, but he is free to choose or refuse the end for which he was created; he is free to neglect or to co-operate with the Divine assistance, which will give his life the stability and perfection of a spiritual rather than of a material nature. This being so, there must be a certain order in the nature of his development. He is not wholly spiritual nor wholly material; he has a soul, a mind, and a body; but the interests of the soul must be supreme, and the interests of mind and body must be brought into proper subservience to it. His movement towards perfection is by way of ascent; it is not easy; it requires continual exercise of the will, continual discipline, continual training -- it is a warfare and a pilgrimage, and in it are two elements, the spiritual and the material, which are one in the unity of his daily life. As St. Paul pointed out, there must be a continual struggle between these two elements. If the individual life is to be a success, the spiritual desire must triumph, the material one must be subordinate, and when this is so the whole individual life is lived with proper economy, spiritual things being sought after as an end, while material things are used merely as a means to that end. The point, then, to be observed is that the spiritual life is really the economic life. From the Christian point of view material necessities are to be kept at a minimum, and material superfluities as far as possible to be dispensed with altogether. The Christian is a soldier and a pilgrim who requires material things only as a means to fitness and nothing more. In this he has the example of Christ Himself, Who came to earth with a minimum of material advantages and persisted thus even to the Cross. The Christian, then, not only from the individual but also from the social standpoint, has chosen the better part. He does not despise this life, but, just because his material desires are subordinate to his spiritual ones, he lives it much more reasonably, much more unselfishly, much more beneficially to his neighbours. The point, too, which he makes against the Socialist is this. The Socialist wishes to distribute material goods in such a way as to establish a substantial equality, and in order to do this he requires the State to make and keep this distribution compulsory. The Christian replies to him: "You cannot maintain this widespread distribution, for the simple reason that you have no machinery for inducing men to desire it. On the contrary, you do all you can to increase the selfish and accumulative desires of men: you centre and concentrate all their interest on material accumulation, and then expect them to distribute their goods." This ultimate difference between Christian and Socialist teaching must be clearly understood. Socialism appropriates all human desires and centres them on the here-and-now, on material benefit and prosperity. But material goods are so limited in quality, in quantity, and in duration that they are incapable of satisfying human desires, which will ever covet more and more and never feel satisfaction. In this Socialism and Capitalism are at one, for their only quarrel is over the bone upon which is the meat that perisheth. Socialism, of itself and by itself, can do nothing to diminish or discipline the immediate and materialistic lust of men, because Socialism is itself the most exaggerated and universalized expression of this lust yet known to history. Christianity, on the other hand, teaches and practices unselfish distribution of material goods, both according to the law of justice and according to the law of charity. Again, ethically speaking, Socialism is committed to the doctrine of determinism. Holding that society makes the individuals of which it is composed, and not vice versa, it has quite lost touch with the invigorating Christian doctrine of free will. This fact may be illustrated by its attitude towards the three great institutions which have hitherto most strongly exemplified and protected that doctrine -- the Church, the Family, and private ownership. Socialism, with its essentially materialistic nature, can admit no raison d'etre for a spiritual power, as complementary and superior to the secular power of the State. Man, as the creature of a material environment, and as the subject of a material State, has no moral responsibilities and can yield to no allegiance beyond that of the State. Any power which claims to appropriate and discipline his interior life, and which affords him sanctions that transcend all evolutionary and scientific determinism, must necessarily incur Socialist opposition. So, too, with the Family. According to the prevalent Socialist teaching, the child stands between two authorities, that of its parents and that of the State, and of these the State is certainly the higher. The State therefore is endowed with the higher authority and with all powers of interference to be used at its own discretion. Contrast this with the Christian notion of the Family -- an organic thing with an organic life of its own. The State, it is true, must ensure a proper basis for its economic life, but beyond that it should not interfere: its business is not to detach the members of the family from their body in order to make them separately and selfishly efficient; a member is cut off from its body only as a last resource to prevent organic poisoning. The business of the State is rather that of helping the Family to a healthy, co-operative, and productive unity. The State was never meant to appropriate to itself the main parental duties, it was rather meant to provide the parents, especially poor parents, with a wider, freer, healthier family sphere in which to be properly parental. Socialism, then, both in Church and Family, is impersonal and deterministic: it deprives the individual of both his religious and his domestic freedom. And it is exactly the same with the institution of private property. The Christian doctrine of property can best be stated in the words of St. Thomas Aquinas: "In regard to an external thing man has two powers: one is the power of managing and controlling it, and as to this it is lawful for a man to possess private property. It is, moreover, necessary for human life for three reasons. First, because everyone is more zealous in looking after a thing that belongs to him than a thing that is the common property of all or of many; because each person, trying to escape labour, leaves to another what is everybody's business, as happens where there are many servants. Secondly, because there is more order in the management of men's affairs if each has his own work of looking after definite things; whereas there would be confusion if everyone managed everything indiscriminately. Thirdly, because in this way the relations of men are kept more peaceful, since everyone is satisfied with his own possession, whence we see that quarrels are commoner between those who jointly own a thing as a whole. The other power which man has over external things is the using of them;; and as to this man must not hold external things as his own property, but as everyone's; so as to make no difficulty, I mean, in sharing when others are in need" (Summa theologica, II-II, Q. Ixvi, a. 2). If man, then, has the right to own, control, and use private property, the State cannot give him this right or take it away; it can only protect it. Here, of course, we are at issue with Socialism, for, according to it, the State is the supreme power from which all human rights are derived; it acknowledges no independent spiritual, domestic, or individual power whatever. In nothing is the bad economy of Socialism more evident than in its derogation or denial of all the truly personal and self-directive powers of human nature, and its misuse of such of such human qualities as it does not despise or deny is a plain confession of its material and deterministic limitations. It is true that the institutions of religion, of the family, and of private ownership are liable to great abuses, but the perfection of human effort and character demands a freedom of choice between good and evil as their first necessary condition. This area of free choice is provided, on the material side, by private ownership; on the spiritual and material, by the Christian Family; and on the purely spiritual by religion. The State, then, instead of depriving men of these opportunities of free and fine production, not only of material but also of intellectual values, should rather constitute itself as their defender. In apparent contradiction, however, to much of the foregoing argument are the considerations put forward by numerous schools of "Christian Socialism", both Catholic and non-Catholic. It will be urged that there cannot really be the opposition between Socialism and Christianity that is here suggested, for, as a matter of fact, many excellent and intelligent persons in all countries are at once convinced Christians and ardent Socialists. Now, before it is possible to estimate correctly how far this undoubted fact can alter the conclusions arrived at above, certain premises must be noted. First, it is not practically possible to consider Socialism solely as an economic or social doctrine. It has long passed the stage of pure theory and attained the proportions of a movement: It is to-day a doctrine embodied in programmes, a system of thought and belief that is put forward as the vivifying principle of an active propaganda, a thing organically connected with the intellectual and moral activities of the millions who are its adherents. Next, the views of small and scattered bodies of men and women, who profess to reconcile the two doctrines, must be allowed no more than their due weight when contrasted with the expressed beliefs of not only the majority of the leading exponents of Socialism, past and present, but also of the immense majority of the rank and file in all nations. Thirdly, for Catholics, the declarations of supreme pontiffs, of the Catholic hierarchy, and of the leading Catholic sociologists and economists have an important bearing on the question, an evidential force not to be lightly dismissed. Lastly, the real meaning attached to the terms "Christianity" and "Socialism", by those who profess to reconcile these doctrines, must always be elicited before it is possible to estimate either what doctrines are being reconciled or how far that reconciliation is of any practical adequacy. If it be found on examination that the general trend of the Socialist movement, the predominant opinion of the Socialists, the authoritative pronouncements of ecclesiastical and expert Catholic authority all tend to emphasize the philosophical cleavage indicated above, it is probably safe to conclude that those who profess to reconcile the two doctrines are mistaken: either their grasp of the doctrines of Christianity or of Socialism will be found to be imperfect, or else their mental habits will appear to be so lacking in discipline that they are content with the profession of a belief in incompatible principles. Now, if Socialism be first considered as embodied in the Socialist movement and Socialist activity, it is notorious that everywhere it is antagonistic to Christianity. This is above all clear in Catholic countries, where the Socialist organizations are markedly anti-Christian both in profession and practice. It is true that of late years there has appeared among Socialists some impatience of remaining mere catspaws of the powerful Masonic anti-clerical societies, but this is rather because these secret societies are largely engineered by the wealthy in the interests of capitalism than from any affection for Catholicism. The European Socialist remains anti-clerical, even when he revolts against Masonic manipulation. Nor is this really less true of non Catholic countries. In Germany, in Holland, in Denmark, in the United States, even in Great Britain, organized Socialism is ever prompt to express (in its practical programme, if not in its formulated creed) its contempt for and inherent antagonism to revealed Christianity. What, in public, is not infrequently deprecated is clearly enough implied in projects of legislation, as well as in the mental attitude that is usual in Socialist circles. Nor are the published views of the Socialist leaders and writers less explicit. "Scientific Socialism" began as an economic exposition of evolutionary materialism; it never lost that character. Its German founders, Marx, Engels, Lassalle, were notoriously anti-Christian both in temper and in acquired philosophy. So have been its more modern exponents in Germany, Bebel, Liebknecht, Kautsky, Dietzgen, Bernstein, Singer, as well as the popular papers -- the "Sozial Demokrat", the "Vorwarts", the "Zimmerer", the "Neue Zeit" -- which reflect, while expounding, the view of the rank and file; and the Gotha and Erfurt programmes, which express the practical aims of the movement. In France and the Netherlands the former and present leaders of the various Socialist sections are at one on the question of Christianity -- Lafargue, Herve, Boudin, Guesde, Jaures, Viviani, Sorel, Briand, Griffuelhes, Largardelle, Tery, Renard, Nieuwenhuis, Vandervelde -- all are anti-Christian, as are the popular newspapers, like "La Guerre Sociale", "L'Humanite", "Le Socialiste", the "Petite Republique", the "Recht voor Allen", "Le Peuple". In Italy, Austria, Spain, Russia, and Switzerland it is the same: Socialism goes hand in hand with the attack on Christianity. Only in the English-speaking countries is the rule apparently void. Yet, even there, but slight acquaintance with the leading personalities of the Socialist movement and the habits of thought current among them, is sufficient to dispel the illusion. In Great Britain certain prominent names at once occur as plainly anti-Christian -- Aveling, Hyndman, Pearson, Blatchford, Bax, Quelch, Leatham, Morris, Standring -- many of them pioneers and prophets of the movement in England. The Fabians, Shaw, Pease, Webb, Guest; independents, like Wells, or Orage, or Carpenter; popular periodicals like "The Clarion", "The Socialist Review", "Justice" are all markedly non-Christian in spirit, though some of them do protest against any necessary incompatibility between their doctrines and the Christian. It is true that the political leaders, like Macdonald and Hardie, and a fair proportion of the present Labour Party might insist that "Socialism is only Christianity in terms of modern economics", but the very measures they advocate or support not unfrequently are anti-Christian in principle or tendency. And in the United States it is the same. Those who have studied the writings or speeches of well-known Socialists, such as Bellamy, Gronlund, Spargo, Hunter, Debs, Herron, Abbott, Brown, Del Mar, Hillquit, Kerr, or Simmons, or periodicals like the "New York Volkszeitung", "The People", "The Comrade", or "The Worker", are aware of the bitterly anti-Christian tone that pervades them and is inherent in their propaganda. The trend of the Socialist movement, then, and the deliberate pronouncements and habitual thought of leaders and followers alike, are almost universally found to be antagonistic to Christianity. Moreover, the other side of the question is but a confirmation of this antagonism. For all three popes who have come into contact with modern Socialism, Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius X, have formally condemned it, both as a general doctrine and with regard to specific points. The bishops and clergy, the lay experts on social and economic questions, the philosophers, the theologians, and practically the whole body of the faithful are unanimous in their acceptance of the condemnation. It is of little purpose to point out that the Socialism condemned is Marxism, and not Fabianism or its analogues in various countries. For, in the first place, the main principles common to all schools of Socialism have been explicitly condemned in Encyclicals like the "Rerum novarum" or the "Graves de communi"; and, in addition, as has been shown above, the main current of Socialism is still Marxist, and no adhesion to a movement professedly international can be acquitted of the guilt of lending support to the condemned doctrines. The Church, the Socialists, the very tendency of the movement do but confirm the antagonism of principle, indicated above, between Socialism and Christianity. The "Christian Socialists" of all countries, indeed, fall readily, upon examination, into one of three categories. Either they are very imperfectly Christian, as the Lutheran followers of Stocker and Naumann in Germany, or the Calvinist Socialists in France, or the numerous vaguely-doctrinal "Free-Church" Socialists in England and America; or, secondly, they are but very inaccurately styled "Socialist"; as were the group led by Kingsley, Maurice and Hughes in England, or "Catholic Democrats" like Ketteler, Manning, Descurtins, the "Sillonists"; or, thirdly, where there is an acceptance of the main Christian doctrine, side by side with the advocacy of Revolutionary Socialism, as is the case with the English "Guild of St. Matthew" or the New York Church Association for the Advancement of the Interests of Labour, it can only be ascribed to that mental facility in holding at the same time incompatible doctrines, which is everywhere the mark of the "Catholic but not Roman" school. Christianity and Socialism are hopelessly incompatible, and the logic of events makes this ever clearer. It is true that, before the publication of the Encyclical "Rerum novarum", it was not unusual to apply the term "Christian Socialism" to the social reforms put forward throughout Europe by those Catholics who are earnestly endeavouring to restore the social philosophy of Catholicism to the position it occupied in the ages of Faith. But, under the guidance of Pope Leo XIII, that crusade against the social and economic iniquities of the present age is now more correctly styled "Christian Democracy", and no really instructed, loyal, and clear-thinking Catholic would now claim or accept the style of Christian Socialist. To sum up, in the words of a capable anonymous writer in "The Quarterly Review", Socialism has for "its philosophical basis, pure materialism; its religious basis is pure negation; its ethical basis the theory that society makes the individuals of which it is composed, not the individuals society, and that therefore the structure of society determines individual conduct, which involves moral irresponsibility; its economic basis is the theory that labour is the sole producer, and that capital is the surplus value over bare subsistence produced by labour and stolen by capitalists; its juristic basis is the right of labour to the whole product; its historical basis is the industrial revolution, that is the change from small and handicraft methods of production to large and mechanical ones, and the warfare of classes; its political basis is democracy. . . . It may be noted that some of these [bases] have already been abandoned and are in ruins, others are beginning to shake; and as this process advances the defenders are compelled to retreat and take up fresh positions. Thus the form of the doctrine changes and undergoes modification, though all cling still to the central principle, which is the substitution of public for private ownership". LESLIE A. ST. L. TOKE W.E. CAMPBELL Socialistic Communities Socialistic Communities This title comprehends those societies which maintain common ownership of the means of production and distribution, e.g., land, factories, and stores, and also those which further extend the practice of common ownership to consumable goods, e.g., houses and food. While the majority of the groups treated in the present article are, strictly speaking, communistic rather than socialistic, they are frequently designated by the latter term. The most important of them have already been described under Communism. Below a more nearly complete list is given, together with brief notices of those societies that have not been discussed in the former articles. At the time of the Protestant Reformation certain socialistic experiments were made by several heretical sects, including the Anabaptists, the Libertines, and the Familists; but these sects did not convert their beliefs along this line into practice with sufficient thoroughness or for a sufficient length of time to give their attempts any considerable value or interest (see Kautsky, "Communism in Central Europe at the Time of the Reformation", London, 1897). The Labadists, a religious sect with communistic features, founded a community in Westphalia, in 1672, under the leadership of Jean de le Badie, an apostate priest. A few years later about one hundred members of the sect established a colony in Northern Maryland, but within half a century both communities ceased to exist. The Ephrata (Pennsylvania) Community was founded in 1732, and contained at one time 300 members, but in 1900 numbered only 17. The Shakers adopted a socialistic form of organization at Watervliet, New York, in 1776. At their most prosperous period their various societies comprised about 5000 persons; to-day (1911) they do not exceed 1000. The Harmonists, or Rappists, were established in Pennsylvania in 1805. Their maximum membership was 1000; in 1900 they numbered 9. Connected with this society is the Bethel Community, which was founded (1844) in Missouri by a group which included some seceders from Harmony. In 1855 the Bethel leader, Dr. Keil, organized another community at Aurora, Oregon. The combined membership of the two settlements never exceeded 1000 persons. Bethel dissolved in 1880 and Aurora in 1881. The Separatists of Zoar (Ohio) were organized as a socialistic community in 1818, and dissolved in 1898. At one time they had 500 members. The New Harmony Community, the greatest attempt ever made in this form of social organization, was founded in Indiana in 1824 by Robert Owen. Its maximum number of members was 900 and its length of life two years. Eighteen other communities formed by seceders from the New Harmony society were about equally short-lived. Other socialistic settlements that owed their foundation to the teachings of Owen were set up at Yellow Springs, Ohio; Nashoba, Tennessee (composed mostly of negroes); Haverstraw, New York; and Kendal, Oregon. None of them lasted more than two years. The Hopedale (Massachusetts) Community was organized in 1842 by the Rev. Adin Ballou; it never had more than 175 members, and it came to an end in 1857. The Brook Farm (Massachusetts) Community was established in 1842 by the Transcendentalist group of scholars and writers. In 1844 it was converted into a Fourierist phalanx; this, however, was dissolved in 1846. Of the Fourieristic phalanges two had a very brief existence in France, and about thirty were organized in the United States between 1840 and 1850. Their aggregate membership was about 4500, and their longevity varied from a few months to twelve years. Aside from the one at Brook Farm, the most noteworthy were: the North American phalanx, founded in 1843 in New Jersey under the direction of Greeley, Brisbane, Channing, and other gifted men, and dissolved in 1855; the Wisconsin, or Cresco, phalanx, organized in 1844, and dispersed in 1850; and the Sylvania Association of Pennsylvania, which has the distinction of being the earliest Fourieristic experiment in the United States, though it lasted only eighteen months. The Oneida (New York) Community, the members of which called themselves Perfectionists because they believed that all who followed their way of life could become perfect, became a communistic organization in 1848, and was converted into a joint-stock corporation in 1881. Its largest number of members was 300. The first Icarian community was set up in Texas in 1848, and the last came to an end in 1895 in Iowa. Their most prosperous settlement, a Nauvoo, numbered more than 500 souls. The Amana Community was organized on socialistic lines in 1843 near Buffalo, New York, but moved to Amana, Iowa, in 1845. It is the one communistic settlement that has increased steadily, though not rapidly, in wealth and numbers. Its members rightly attribute this fact to its religious character and motive. The community embraces about 1800 persons. A unique community is the Woman's Commonwealth, established about 1875 near Belton, Texas, and transferred to Mount Pleasant, D.C., in 1898. It was organized by women who from motives of religious and conscience had separated themselves from their husbands. As the members number less than thirty and are mostly those who instituted the community more than thirty-five years ago, the experiment cannot last many years longer. The most important of recently founded communities was the Ruskin Co-operative Colony, organized in 1894 in Tennessee by J. A. Wayland, editors of the socialist paper, "The Coming Nation". While the capital of the community was collectively owned, its products were distributed among the members in the form of wages. Owing to dissensions and withdrawals, the colony was reorganized on a new site in 1896, but it also was soon dissolved. About 250 of the colonists moved to Georgia, and set up another community, but this in a few years ceased to exist. A number of other communities have been formed within recent years, most of which permit private ownership of consumption-goods and private family life. As none of them has became strong either in numbers or in wealth, and as all of them seem destined to an early death, they will receive only the briefest mention here. Those worthy of any notice are: The Christian Commonwealth of Georgia, organized in 1896, and dissolved in 1900; the Cooperative Brotherhood, of Burley, Washington; the Straight Edge Industrial Settlement, of New York City; the Home Colony in the State of Washington, which has the distinction of being the only anarchist colony; the Mutual Home Association, located in the same state; the Topolambo Colony in Mexico, which lasted but a few months; and the Fairhope (Alabama) Single-Tax Corporation, which has had a fair measure of success, but which is neither socialistic nor communistic in the proper sense. Reviewing the history of socialistic experiments, we perceive that only those that were avowedly and strongly religious, adopting a socialistic organization as incidental to their religious purposes, have achieved even temporary and partial success. Practically speaking, only two of these religious communities remain; of these the Shakers are growing steadily weaker, while the Amana Society is almost stationary, and, besides, is obliged to carry on some of its industries with the aid of outside hired labor. See bibliography under COMMUNISM. HILQUIT, History of Socialism in the United States (New York, 1903); KENT in Bulletin No. 35 of the Department of Labor; MALLOCK, A Century of Socialistic Experiments in the Dublin Review, July, 1909; WOLFF, Socialistic Communism in the United States in the American Catholic Quarterly Review, III (Philadelphia, 1878), 522; Socialist Colony in Mexico in Dublin Review, CXIV (London, 1894), 180. JOHN A. RYAN Catholic Societies Catholic Societies Catholic societies are very numerous throughout the world; some are international in scope, some are national; some diocesan and others parochial. These are treated in particular under their respective titles throughout the Encyclopedia, or else under the countries or the dioceses in which they exist. This article is concerned only with Catholic societies in general. The right of association is one of the natural rights of man. It is not surprising, therefore, that from earliest antiquity societies of the most diverse kinds should have been formed. In pagan Rome the Church was able to carry on its work and elude the persecuting laws, only under the guise of a private corporation or society. When it became free it encouraged the association of its children in various guilds and fraternities, that they might more easily, while remaining subject to the general supervision of ecclesiastical authority, obtain some special good for their souls or bodies or both simultaneously. By a society we understand the voluntary and durable association of a number of persons who pledge themselves to work together to obtain some special end. Of such societies there is a great variety, in the Church both for laymen and clerics, the most perfect species of the latter being the regular orders and religious congregations bound by perpetual vows. As to societies of laymen, we may distinguish broadly three classes: (a) confraternities, which are associations of the faithful canonically erected by the proper ecclesiastical superior to promote a Christian method of life by special works of piety towards God, e.g. the splendour of divine worship, or towards one's neighbour, e.g. the spiritual or corporal works of mercy (see CONFRATERNITY); (b) pious associations, whose objects are generally the same as those of confraternities, but which are not canonically erected (see ASSOCIATIONS, Pious); and (c) societies whose members are Catholics, but which are not in the strict sense of the word religious societies. Some of these associations are ecclesiastical corporations in the strict acceptation of the term, while others are merely subordinate and dependent parts of the parish or diocesan organization, or only remotely connected with it. Church corporations, inasmuch as they are moral or legal persons, have the right, according to canon law, of making by-laws for their association by the suffrage of the members, of electing their own officers, of controlling their property within the limits of the canons, and of making provision, according to their own judgment, for their preservation and growth. They have, consequently, certain defined rights, both original or those derived from their constitution, and adventitious or what they have acquired by privilege or concession. Among original rights of all ecclesiastical corporations are the right of exclusion or the expelling of members; of selection or the adoption of new members; of convention or meeting for debate and counsel; of assistance or aiding their associates who suffer from a violation of their corporate rights. Societies of this nature have an existence independent of the individual members and can be dissolved only by ecclesiastical decree. Catholic societies which are not church corporations may be founded and dissolved at the will of their members. Sometimes they are approved, or technically praised, by ecclesiastical authority, but they are also frequently formed without any intervention of the hierarchy. In general, it may be said that Catholic societies of any description are very desirable. The Church has always watched with singular care over the various organizations formed by the faithful for the promotion of any good work, and the popes have enriched them with indulgences. No hard and fast rules have been made, however, as to the method of government. Some societies, e.g. the Propagation of the Faith and the Holy Childhood, are general in their scope; others, e.g. the Church Extension Society of the United States, are peculiar to one country. It sometimes happens that an association formed for one country penetrates into another, e.g. the Piusverein, the Society of Christian Mothers, etc. There are also societies instituted to provide for some special need, as an altar or tabernacle society, or for the furthering of some special devotion, as the Holy Name Society. For societies which are general in their scope, the Holy See frequently appoints a cardinal protector and reserves the choice of the president to itself. This is likewise done as a mark of special favour to some societies which are only national, as the Church Extension Society of the United States (Brief of Pius X, 9 June, 1910). In general, it mag be affirmed that it is the special duty of the bishop and the parish priest to found or promote such societies as the faithful of their districts may be in need of. Utility and necessity often vary with the circumstances of time and country. In some lands it has been found possible and advisable for the Church authorities to form Catholic societies of workingmen. These are trades-unions under ecclesiastical auspices and recall the old Catholic guilds of the Middle Ages. Zealous bishops and priests have made the promotion of such societies, as in Germany and Belgium, a special work, in the hope of preventing Catholic workingmen from being allured by temporal gain into atheistic societies in which the foundations of civil and religious institutions are attacked. In these unions a priest appointed by the bishop gives religious instructions which are particularly directed against the impious arguments of those who seek to destroy the morals and faith of the workingman. Methods are pointed out for regulating the family life according to the laws of God; temperance, frugality, and submission to lawful authority are urged, and frequentation of the sacraments insisted on. These unions also provide innocent amusements for their members. Such societies at times add confraternity and sodality features to their organization. There are a number of societies formed by Catholics which are not in a strict sense Catholic societies. Nevertheless, as the individual faithful are subject to the authority of the bishop they remain subject to the same authority even as members of an organization. It is true that the bishop may not, in consequence of his ecclesiastical jurisdiction, rule such societies in the same sense as he does confraternities, and pious associations, yet he retains the inalienable right and even the obligation of preventing the faithful from being led into spiritual ruin through societies of whatsoever name or purpose. He can, therefore, if convinced that an organization is harmful, forbid it to assist at church services in its regalia, and, when no emendation results, warn individuals against entering it or remaining members of it. Finally, there are societies which are entirely secular, whose sole purpose is to promote or obtain some commercial, domestic, or political advantage, such as the ordinary trades-unions. In such organizations men of every variety of religious belief combine together, and many Catholics are found among the members. There can be no objection to such societies as long as the end intended and the means employed are licit and honourable. It remains, however, the duty of the bishops to see that members of their flock suffer no diminution of faith or contamination of morals from such organizations. Experience has proved that secular societies, while perfectly unobjectionable in their avowed ends, may cause grave spiritual danger to their members. Bishops and parish priests can not be blamed therefore, if they display some anxiety as to membership in societies which are not avowedly Catholic. If they did otherwise, they would be false to their duty towards their flock. It may be well to quote here the weighty words of an Instruction of the Holy Office (10 May, 1884): "Concerning artisans and labourers, among whom various societies are especially desirous of securing members that they may destroy the very foundations of religion and society, let the bishops place before their eyes the ancient guilds of workingmen, which, under the protection of some patron saint, were an ornament of the commonwealth and an aid to the higher and lower arts. They will again found such societies for men of commercial and literary pursuits, in which the exercises of religion will go hand in hand with the benevolent aims that seek to assuage the ills of sickness, old age, or poverty. Those who preside over such societies should see that the members commend themselves by the probity of their morals, the excellence of their work, the docility and assiduity of their labours, so that they may more securely provide for their sustenance. Let the bishops themselves not refuse to watch over such societies, suggest or approve by-laws, conciliate employers, and give every assistance and patronage that lie in their power." There are many societies of Catholics or societies of which Catholics are members that employ methods which seem imitations derived from various organizations prohibited by the Church. It may be well, therefore, to state that no Catholic is allowed, as a member of any society whatever, to take an oath of blind and unlimited obedience; or promise secrecy of such a nature that, if circumstances require it, he may not reveal certain things to the lawful ecclesiastical or civil authorities; or join in a ritual which would be equivalent to sectarian worship (see SOCIETIES, SECRET). Even when a society is founded by Catholics or is constituted principally of Catholics, it is possible for it to degenerate into a harmful organization and call for the intervention of the authority of the Church. Such was the fate of the once brilliant and meritorious French society "Le Sillon," which was condemned by Pius X (25 Aug., 1910). It is often expedient for Catholic societies to be incorporated by the civil authority as private corporations. In fact, this is necessary if they wish to possess property or receive bequests in their own name. In some countries, as Russia, such incorporation is almost impossible; in others, as Germany and France, the Government makes many restrictions; but in English-speaking countries there is no difficulty. In England societies may be incorporated not only by special legal act, but also by common law or by prescription. In the United States a body corporate may be formed only by following the plan proposed by a law of Congress or a statute of a state legislature. The procedure varies slightly in different states, but as a rule incorporation is effected by filing a paper in the office of the secretary of state or with a circuit judge, stating the object and methods of the society. Three incorporators are sufficient, and the Petition will always be granted if the purposes of the association are not inconsistent with the laws of the United States or of the particular state in question. LAURENTIUS, Institutiones juris ecclesiastici (Fribourg, 1905); WERNZ, Jus decretalium, III (Rome, 1901); AICHNER, Compendium juris ecclesiastici (Brixen, 1895); BERINGER, Die Ablaesse (13th ed., Paderborn, 1911; French tr., 1905); TAYLOR, The Law of Private Corporations (New York, 1902); Handbook of Catholic Charitable and Social Works (London, 1912). WILLIAM H.W. FANNING American Federation of Catholic Societies American Federation of Catholic Societies An organization of the Catholic laity, parishes, and societies under the guidance of the hierarchy, to protect and advance their religious, civil, and social interests. It does not destroy the autonomy of any society or interfere with its activities, but seeks to unite all of them for purposes of co-operation and economy of forces. It is not a political organization, neither does it ask any privileges or favours for Catholics. The principal object of the Federation is to encourage (1) the Christian education of youth; (2) the correction of error and exposure of falsehood and injustice; the destruction of bigotry; the placing of Catholics and the Church in their true light, thus removing the obstacles that have hitherto impeded their progress; (3) the infusion of Christian principles into public and social life, by combatting the errors threatening to undermine the foundations of civil society, notably socialism, divorce, dishonesty in business, and corruption in politics and positions of public trust. The first organization to inaugurate the movement for a concerted action of the societies of Catholic laymen was the Knights of St. John. At their annual meeting held at Cleveland in 1899 they resolved to unite the efforts of their local commanderies. In 1900 at Philadelphia they discussed the question of a federation of all the Catholic societies. As a result a convention was held on 10 Dec., 1901, at Cincinnati, under the presidency of Mr. H.J. Fries. Two hundred and fifty delegates were present under the guidance of Bishop McFaul of Trenton, Bishop Messmer of Green Bay, now Archbishop of Milwaukee, the principal factors in the organization of the movement, Archbishop Elder of Cincinnati, Bishop Horstmann of Cleveland, and Bishop Maes of Covington. A charter bond was framed and the Federation formally established, with Mr. T.B. Minahan as its first president. Since then annual conventions have been held. The Federation represents close to two million Catholics. It has been approved by Popes Leo XIII and Pius X, and practically all the hierarchy of the country. The fruits of the labours of the organization have been manifold; among other things it has helped to obtain a fair settlement of the disputes concerning the church property in the Philippines, permission for the celebration of Mass in the navy-yards, prisons, reform schools; assistance for the Catholic Indian schools and negro missions; the withdrawal and prohibition of indecent plays and post-cards. It has prevented the enactment of laws inimical to Catholic interests in several state legislatures. One of its chief works has been the uniting of the Catholics of different nationalities, and harmonizing their efforts for self-protection and improvement. It publishes a monthly Bulletin, which contains valuable social studies. The national secretary is Mr. Anthony Matré, Victoria Building, St. Louis, Missouri. MATRE, Hist. of the Feder. of Cath. Soc. in The Catholic Columbian (Columbus, Ohio, 18 Aug., 1911); MCFAUL, The Amer. Feder. of Cath. Soc. (Cincinnati, 1911). A.A. MACERLEAN Secret Societies Secret Societies A designation of which the exact meaning has varied at different times. I. DEFINITION "By a secret society was formerly meant a society which was known to exist, but whose members and places of meetings were not publicly known. Today, we understand by a secret society, a society with secrets, having a ritual demanding an oath of allegiance and secrecy, prescribing ceremonies of a religious character, such as the use of the Bible, either by extracts therefrom, or by its being placed an altar within a lodge-room, by the use of prayers, of hymns, of religious signs and symbols, special funeral services, etc." (Rosen, "The Catholic Church and Secret Societies," p. 2). Raich gives a more elaborate description: "Secret societies are those organizations which completely conceal their rules, corporate activity, the names of their members, their signs, passwords and usages from outsiders or the 'profane.' As a rule, the members of these societies are bound to the strictest secrecy concerning all the business of the association by oath or promise or word of honour, and often under the threat of severe punishment in case of its violation. If such secret society has higher and lower degrees, the members of the higher degree must be equally careful to conceal their secrets from their brethren of a lower degree. In certain secret societies, the members are not allowed to know even the names of their highest officers. Secret societies were founded to promote certain ideal aims, to be obtained not by violent but by moral measures. By this, they are distinguished from conspiracies and secret plots which are formed to attain a particular object through violent means. Secret societies may be religious, scientific, political or social" (Kirchenlex., V, p. 519). Narrowing the definition still more to the technical meaning of secret societies (societates clandestinae) in ecclesiastical documents, Archbishop Katzer in a Pastoral (20 Jan., 1895) says: "The Catholic Church has declared that she considers those societies illicit and forbidden which (1) unite their members for the purpose of conspiring against the State or Church; (2) demand the observance of secrecy to such an extent that it must be maintained even before the rightful ecclesiastical authority; (3) exact an oath from their members or a promise of blind and absolute obedience; (4) make use of a ritual and ceremonies that constitute them sects." II. ORIGIN Though secret societies, in the modern and technical sense, did not exist in antiquity, yet there were various organizations which boasted an esoteric doctrine known only to their members, and carefully concealed from the profane. Some date societies of this kind back to Pythagoras (582-507 B.C.). The Eleusinian Mysteries, the secret teachings of Egyptian and Druid hierarchies, the esoteric doctrines of the Magian and Mithraic worshippers furnished material for such secret organizations. In Christian times, such heresies as the Gnostic and Manichaean also claimed to possess a knowledge known only to the illuminated and not to be shared with the vulgar. Likewise, the enemies of the religious order of Knights Templars maintained that the brothers of the Temple, while externally professing Christianity, were in reality pagans who veiled their impiety under orthodox terms to which an entirely different meaning was given by the initiated. Originally, the various guilds of the Middle Ages were in no sense secret societies in the modern acceptation of the term, though some have supposed that symbolic Freemasonry was gradually developed in those organizations. The fantastic Rosicrucians are credited with something of the nature of a modern secret society, but the association, if such it was, can scarcely be said to have emerged into the clear light of history. III. MODERN ORGANIZATIONS Secret societies in the true sense began with symbolic Freemasonry about the year 1717 in London (see MASONRY). This widespread oath-bound association soon became the exemplar or the parent of numerous other fraternities, nearly all of which have some connexion with Freemasonry, and in almost every instance were founded by Masons. Among these may be mentioned the Illuminati, the Carbonari, the Odd-Fellows, the Knights of Pythias, the Sons of Temperance and similar societies whose number is legion. Based on the same principles as the secret order to which they are affiliated are the women-auxiliary lodges, of which almost every secret society has at least one. These secret societies for women have also their rituals, their oaths, and their degrees. Institutions of learning are also infected with the glamour of secret organizations and the "Eleusis" of Chi Omega (Fayetteville, Ark.) of 1 June, 1900, states that there are twenty-four Greek letter societies with seven hundred and sixty-eight branches for male students, and eight similar societies with one hundred and twenty branches for female students, and a total membership of 142,456 in the higher institutions of learning in the United States. IV. ATTITUDE OF ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITIES The judgment of the Church on secret oath-bound associations has been made abundantly clear by papal documents. Freemasonry was condemned by Clement XII in a Constitution, dated 28 April, 1738. The pope insists on the objectionable character of societies that commit men of all or no religion to a system of mere natural righteousness, that seek their end by binding their votaries to secret pacts by strict oaths, often under penalties of the severest character, and that plot against the tranquillity of the State. Benedict XIV renewed the condemnation of his predecessor on 18 May, 1751. The Carbonari were declared a prohibited society by Pius VII in a Constitution dated 13 Sept., 1821, and he made it manifest that organizations similar to Freemasonry involve an equal condemnation. The Apostolic Constitution "Quo Graviora" of Leo XII (18 March, 1825) put together the acts and decrees of former pontiffs on the subject of secret societies and ratified and confirmed them. The dangerous character and tendencies of secret organizations among students did not escape the vigilance of the Holy See, and Pius VIII (24 May, 1829) raised his warning voice concerning those in colleges and academies, as his predecessor, Leo XII, had done in the matter of universities. The succeeding popes, Gregory XVI (15 Aug., 1832) and Pius IX (9 Nov., 1846; 20 Apr., 1849; 9 Dec., 1854; 8 Dec., 1864; 25 Sept., 1865), continued to warn the faithful against secret societies and to renew the ban of the Church on their designs and members. On 20 Apr., 1884, appeared the famous Encyclical of Leo XIII, "Humanum Genus." In it the pontiff says: "As soon as the constitution and spirit of the masonic sect were clearly discovered by manifest signs of its action, by cases investigated, by the publication of its laws and of its rites and commentaries, with the addition often of the personal testimony of those who were in the secret, the Apostolic See denounced the sect of the Freemasons and publicly declared its constitution as contrary to law and right, to be pernicious no less to Christendom than to the State; and it forbade anyone to enter the society, under the penalties which the Church is wont to inflict upon exceptionally guilty persons. The sectaries, indignant at this, thinking to elude or to weaken the force of these decrees, partly by contempt of them and partly by calumny, accused the Sovereign Pontiffs who had uttered them, either of exceeding the bounds of moderation or of decreeing what was not just. This was the manner in which they endeavoured to elude the authority and weight of the Apostolic Constitutions of Clement XII and Benedict XIV, as well as of Pius VIII and Pius IX. Yet in the very society itself there were found men who unwillingly acknowledged that the Roman Pontiffs had acted within their right, according to the Catholic doctrine and discipline. The pontiffs received the same assent, and in strong terms, from many princes and heads of governments, who made it their business either to delate the masonic society to the Holy See, or of their own accord by special enactments to brand it as pernicious, as for example in Holland, Austria, Switzerland, Spain, Bavaria, Savoy and other parts of Italy. But, what is of the highest importance, the course of events has demonstrated the prudence of our predecessors." Leo XIII makes it clear that it is not only the society explicitly called Masonic that is objectionable: "There are several organized bodies which, though they differ in name, in ceremonial, in form and origin, are nevertheless so bound together by community of purpose and by the similarity of their main opinions as to make in fact one thing with the sect of the Freemasons, which is a kind of centre whence they all go forth and whither they all return. Now, these no longer show a desire to remain concealed; for they hold their meetings in the daylight and before the public eye, and publish their own newspaper organs; and yet, when thoroughly understood they are found still to retain the nature and the habits of secret societies." The pope is not unmindful of the professed benevolent aims of these societies: "They speak of their zeal for a more cultured refinement and of their love of the poor; and they declare their one wish to be the amelioration of the condition of the masses, and to share with the largest possible number all the benefits of civil life. Even were these purposes aimed at in real truth, yet they are by no means the whole of their object. Moreover, to be enrolled it is necessary that candidates promise and undertake to be thenceforward strictly obedient to their leaders and masters with the utmost submission and fidelity, and to be in readiness to do their bidding upon the slightest expression of their will." The pontiff then points out the dire consequences which result from the fact that these societies substitute Naturalism for the Church of Christ and inculcate, at the very least, indifferentism in matters of religion. Other papal utterances on secret societies are: "Ad Apostolici," 15 Oct., 1890; "Praeclara," 20 June, 1894; "Annum Ingressi," 18 Mar., 1902. V. THE SOCIETIES FORBIDDEN The extension of the decrees of the Apostolic See in regard to societies hitherto forbidden under censure is summed up in the well-known Constitution "Apostolicae Sedis" of Pius IX, where excommunication is pronounced against those "who give their names to the sect of the masons or Carbonari or any other sects of the same nature, which conspire against the Church or lawfully constituted Governments, either openly or covertly, as well as those who favor in any manner these sects or who do not denounce their leaders and chiefs." The condemned societies here described are associations formed to antagonize the Church or the lawful civil power. A society to be of the same kind as the Masonic, must also be a secret organization. It is of no consequence whether the society demand an oath to observe its secrets or not. It is plain also that public and avowed attacks on Church or State are quite compatible with a secret organization. It must not supposed, however, that only societies which fall directly under the formal censure of the Church are prohibited. The Congregation of the Holy Office issued an instruction on 10 May, 1884, in which it says: "That there maybe no possibility of error when there is a question of judging which of these pernicious societies fall under censure or mere prohibition, it is certain in the first place, that the Masonic and other sects of the same nature are excommunicated, whether they exact or do not exact an oath from their members to observe secrecy. Besides these, there are other prohibited societies, to be avoided under grave sin, and among which are especially to be noted those which under oath, communicate a secret to their members to be concealed from everybody else, and which demand absolute obedience to unknown leaders." To the secret societies condemned by name, the Congregation of the Holy Office, on 20 Aug., 1894, in a Decree addressed to the hierarchy of the United States, added the Odd-Fellows, the Sons of Temperance, and the Knights of Pythias. VI. RECENTLY CONDEMNED SOCIETIES The order of Odd-Fellows was formed in England in 1812 as a completed organization, though some lodges date back to 1745; and it was introduced into America in 1819. In the "Odd-Fellows' Improved Pocket Manual" the author writes: "Our institution has instinctively, as it were, copied after all secret associations of religious and moral character." The "North-West Odd-Fellow Review" (May, 1895) declares: "No home can be an ideal one unless the principles of our good and glorious Order are represented therein, and its teachings made the rule of life." In the "New Odd-Fellows' Manual" (N.Y., 1895) the author says: "The written as well as the unwritten secret work of the Order, I have sacredly kept unrevealed," though the book is dedicated "to all inquirers who desire to know what Odd-Fellowship really is." This book tells us "Odd-Fellowship was founded on great religious principles" (p. 348); "we use forms of worship" (p. 364); "Judaism, Christianity, Mohammedanism recognize the only living and true God" (p. 297). The Odd- Fellows have chaplains, altars, high-priests, ritual, order of worship, and funeral ceremonies. The order of the Sons of Temperance was founded in New York in 1842 and introduced into England in 1846. The "Cyclopaedia of Fraternities" says (p. 409): "The Sons of Temperance took the lead in England in demonstrating the propriety and practicability of both men and women mingling in secret society lodges." That the object of this order and its kindred societies is not confined to temperance "is evidenced by its mode of initiation, the form of the obligation and the manner of religious worship" (Rosen, p. 162). The order of the Knights of Pythias was founded in 1864 by prominent Freemasons (Cyclop. of Fraternities, p. 263). In number, its membership is second only to that of the Odd-Fellows. Rosen (The Catholic Church and Secret Societies) says: "The principal objectionable features, on account of which the Catholic Church has forbidden its members to join the Knights of Pythias, and demanded a withdrawal of those who joined it, are: First, the oath of secrecy by which the member binds himself to keep secret whatever concerns the doings of the Order, even from those in Church and State who have a right to know, under certain conditions, what their subjects are doing. Secondly, this oath binds the member to blind obedience, which is symbolized by a test. Such an obedience is against the law of man's nature, and against all divine and human law. Thirdly, Christ is not the teacher and model in the rule of life but the pagan Pythagoras and the pagans Damon, Pythias and Dionysius" (p. 160). The "Ritual for the subordinate Lodges of the Knights of Pythias" (Chicago, 1906) shows that this organization has oaths, degrees, prelates, and a ritual that contains religious worship. The decree of the Holy Office concerning the Odd-Fellows, Sons of Temperance, and Knights of Pythias, though not declaring them to be condemned under censure, says: "The bishops must endeavour by all means to keep the faithful from joining all and each of the three aforesaid societies; and warn the faithful against them, and if, after proper monition, they still determine to be members of these societies, or do not effectually separate themselves from them, they are to be forbidden the reception of the sacraments. A decree of 18 Jan., 1896, allows a nominal membership in these three societies, if in the judgment of the Apostolic delegate, four conditions are fulfilled: that the society was entered in good faith, that there be no scandal, that grave temporal injury would result from withdrawal, and that there be no danger of perversion. The delegate, in granting a dispensation, usually requires a promise that the person will not attend any meetings or frequent the lodge-rooms, that the dues be sent in by mail or by a third party, and that in case of death the society will have nothing to do with the funeral. VII. ORDERS OF WOMEN In regard to female secret societies, the Apostolic delegation at Washington, 2 Aug., 1907, declared (Ans. no. 15,352-C): "If these societies are affiliated to societies already nominally condemned by the Church, they fall under the same condemnation, for they form, as it were, a branch of such societies. As regards other female secret societies which may not be affiliated with societies condemned expressly by the Church, the confessor must in cases of members belonging to such societies, apply the principles of moral theology which treat of secret societies in general." The document adds that members of female secret societies affiliated to the three societies condemned in 1894 will be dealt with by the Apostolic delegate in the same manner as male members when the necessary conditions are fulfilled. VIII. TRADES UNIONS The Third Council of Baltimore (no. 253) declares: "We see no reason why the prohibition of the Church against the Masonic and other secret societies should be extended to organizations of workingmen, which have no other object in view than mutual protection and aid for their members in the practice of their trades. Care must be taken, however, that nothing, be admitted under any pretext which favors condemned societies; or that the workingmen who belong to these organizations be induced, by the cunning arts of wicked men, to withhold, contrary to the laws of justice, the labor due from them, or in any other manner violate the rights of their employers. Those associations are entirely illicit, in which the members are so bound for mutual defense that danger of riots and murders is the outcome." IX. METHOD OF CONDEMNATION Finally, in regard to the condemnation of individual societies in the United States, the council says (no. 255): "To avoid confusion of discipline which ensues, to the great scandal of the faithful and the detriment of ecclesiastical authority, when the same society is condemned in one diocese and tolerated in another, we desire that no society be condemned by name as falling under one of the classes [of forbidden societies] before the Ordinary has brought the matter before a commission which we now constitute for judging such cases, and which will consist of all the archbishops of these provinces. If it be not plain to all that a ~society is to be condemned, recourse must be had to the Holy See in order that a definite judgment be obtained and that uniform discipline may be preserved in these provinces". STEVENS, The Cyclopaedia of Fraternities (New York, 1907); COOK, Revised Knights of Pythias Illustrated-Ritual for Subordinate Lodges of the Knights of Pythias Adopted by the Supreme Lodge (Chicago, 1906); IDEM, Revised Odd-Fellowship Illustrated -- The Complete Revised Ritual (Chicago, 1906); CARNAHAN, Pythian Knighthood (Cincinnati, 1888); F.J.L., The Order of the Knights of Pythias in the Light of God's Word (Lutheran Tract) (New Orleans, 1899); DALLMAN, Odd-Fellowship Weighed -- Wanting (Pittsburgh, 1906); GERBER, Der Odd-Fellow Orden. u. Das Decret vom 1894 (Berlin, 1896); MACDILL AND BLANCHARD, Secret Societies (Chicago, 1891); DALLMANN, Opinions on Secret Societies (Pittsburgh, 1906); H.C.S., Two Discourses Against Secret Oath-Bound Societies or Lodges (Columbus, O., s.d.); KELLOGG, College Secret Societies (Chicago, 1894); ROSEN, The Catholic Church and Secret Societies (Hollendale, Wis., 1902); IDEM, Reply to my Critics of the Cath. Church and Secret Societies (Dubuque, 1903). See also the extended bibliography appended to article MASONRY. WILLIAM H.W. FANNING Society Society Society implies fellowship, company, and has always been conceived as signifying a human relation, and not a herding of sheep, a hiving of bees, or a mating of wild animals. The accepted definition of a society is a stable union of a plurality of persons cooperating for a common purpose of benefit to all. The fulness of co-operation involved naturally extends to all the activities of the mind, will, and external faculties, commensurate with the common purpose and the bond of union: this alone presents an adequate, human working-together. This definition is as old as the Schoolmen, and embodies the historical concept as definitized by cogent reasoning. Under such reasoning it has become the essential idea of society and remains so still, notwithstanding the perversion of philosophical terms consequent upon later confusion of man with beast, stock, and stone. It is a priori only as far as chastened by restrictions put upon it by the necessities of known truth, and is a departure from the inductive method in vogue to-day only so far as to exclude rigidly the aberrations of uncivilized tribes and degenerate races from the requirements of reason and basic truth. Historical induction taken alone, while investigating efficient causes of society, may yet miss its essential idea, and is in peril of including irrational abuse with rational action and development. The first obvious requisite in all society is authority. Without this there can be no secure co-ordination of effort nor permanency of co-operation. No secure co-ordination, for men's judgment will differ on the relative value of means for the common purpose, men's choice will vary on means of like value; and unless there is some headship, confusion will result. No permanence of co-operation, for the best of men relax in their initial resolutions, and to hold them at a coordinate task, a tight rein and a steady spur is needed. In fact, reluctant though man is to surrender the smallest tittle of independence and submit in the slightest his freedom to the bidding of another, there never has been in the history of the world a successful, nor even a serious attempt at co-operative effort without authoritative guidance (see AUTHORITY, CIVIL). Starting with this definition and requirement, philosophy finds itself confronted with two kinds of society, the artificial or conventional, and the natural; and on pursuing the subject, finds the latter differentiating itself into domestic society, or the family, civil society, or the State, and religious society, or the Church. Each of these has a special treatment under other headings (see FAMILY; STATE AND CHURCH). Here, however, we shall state the philosophic basis of each, and add thereto the theories which have had a vogue for the last three centuries though breaking down now under the strain of modern problems before the bar of calm judgment. CONVENTIONAL SOCIETIES The plurality of persons, the community of aim, the stability of bond, authority, and some co-operation of effort being elements common to every form of society, the differentiation must come from differences in the character of the purpose, in the nature of the bond. Qualifications of authority as well as modifications in details of requisite co-operation will follow on changes in the purpose and the extent of the bond. As many then as there are objects of human desire attainable by common effort (and their name is legion, from the making of money, which is perhaps the commonest to-day, to the rendering of public worship to our Maker which is surely the most sacred), so manifold are the co-operative associations of men. The character, as well as the existence of most of them, is left in full freedom to human choice. These may be denominated conventional societies. Man is under no precept to establish them, nor in universal need of them. He makes or unmakes them at his pleasure. They serve a passing purpose, and in setting them up men give them the exact character which they judge at present suitable for their purpose, determining as they see fit the limits of authority, the choice of means, the extent of the bond holding them together, as well as their own individual reservations. Everything about such a society is of free election, barring the fact that the essential requisites of a society must be there. We find this type exemplified in a reading circle,, a business partnership, or a private charitable organization. Of course, in establishing such a society men are under the Natural Law of right and wrong, and there can be no moral bond, for example, where the common purpose is immoral. They also fall under the restrictions of tho civil law, when the existence or action of such an organization comes to have a bearing, whether of promise or of menace, upon the common weal. In such case the State lays down its essential requirements for the formation of such bodies, and so we come to have what is known as a legal society, a society, namely, freely established under the sanction and according to the requirements of the civil law. Such are mercantile corporations and beneficial organizations with civil charter. NATURAL SOCIETIES Standing apart from the foregoing in a class by themselves are the family, the State, and the Church. That these differ from all other societies in purpose and means, is clear and universally admitted. That they have a general application to the whole human race, history declares. That there is a difference between the bond holding them in existence and the bond of union in every other society, has been disputed -- with more enthusiasm and imagination, however, than logical force. The logical view of the matter brings us to the concept of a natural society, a society, that is to say, which men are in general under a mandate of the natural law to establish, a society by consequence whose essential requisites are firmly fixed by the same natural law. To get at this is simple enough, if the philosophical problems are taken up in due order. Ethics may not be divided from psychology and theodicy, any more than from deductive logic. With the proper premisals then from one and the other here assumed, we say that the Creator could not have given man a fixed nature, as He has, without willing man to work out the purpose for which that nature is framed. He cannot act idly and without purpose, cannot form His creature discordantly with the purpose of His will. He cannot multiply men on the face of the earth without a plan for working out the destiny of mankind at large. This plan must contain all the elements necessary to His purpose, and these necessary details He must have willed man freely to accomplish, that is to say, He must have put upon man a strict obligation thereunto. Other details may be alternatives, or helpful but not necessary, and these He has left to man's free choice; though where one of these elements would of its nature be far more helpful than another, God's counsel to man will be in favour of the former. God's will directing man through his nature to his share in the full purpose of the cosmic plan, we know as the natural law, containing precept, permission, and counsel, according to the necessity, helpfulness, or extraordinary value of an action to the achievement of the Divine purpose. We recognize these in the concrete by a rational study of the essential characteristics of human nature and its relations with the rest of the universe. If we find a natural aptitude in man for an action, not at variance with the general purpose of things, we recognize also the licence of the natural law to that action. If we find a more urgent natural propensity to it, we recognize further the counsel of the law. If we find the use of a natural faculty, the following up of a natural propensity, inseparable from the rational fulfilment of the ultimate destiny of the individual or of the human race, we know that thereon lies a mandate of the natural law, obliging the conscience of man. We must not, however, miss the difference, that if the need of the action or effort is for the individual natural destiny, the mandate lies on each human being severally: but if the need be for the natural destiny of the race, the precept does not descend to this or that particular individual, so long as the necessary bulk of men accomplish the detail so intended in the plan for the natural destiny of the race. This is abstract reasoning, but necessary for the understanding of a natural society in the fulness of its idea. SOCIETY NATURAL BY MANDATE A society, then, is natural by mandate, when the law of nature sets the precept upon mankind to establish that society. The precept is recognized by the natural aptitude, propensity, and need in men for the establishment of such a union. From this point of view the gift of speech alone is sufficient to show man's aptitude for fellowship with his kind. It is emphasized by his manifold perfectibility through contact with others and through their permanent companionship. Furthermore his normal shrinking from solitude, from working out the problems of life alone is evidence of a social propensity to which mankind has always yielded. If again we consider his dependence for existence and comfort on the multiplied products of co-ordinate human effort; and his dependence for the development of his physical, intellectual, and moral perfectibility on complex intercourse with others, we see a need, in view of man's ultimate destiny, that makes the actualization of man's capacity of organized social co-operation a stringent law upon mankind. Taking then the kinds of social organization universally existent among men, it is plain not only that they are the result of natural propensities, but that, as analysis shows, they are a human need and hence are prescribed in the code of the Natural Law. A SOCIETY NATURAL IN ESSENTIALS Furthermore, as we understand a legal contract to be one which, because of its abutment on common interests, the civil law hedges round with restrictions and reservations for their protection, similarly on examination we shall find that all agreements by which men enter into stable social union are fenced in with limitations set by the natural law guarding the essential interests of the good of mankind. When, moreover, we come to social unions prescribed for mankind by mandate of that law, we expect to find the purpose of the union set by the law (otherwise the law would not have prescribed the union), all the details morally necessary for the rational attainment of that purpose fixed by the law, and all obstacles threatening sure defeat to that purpose, proscribed by the same. A natural society, then, besides being natural by mandate, will also be natural in all its essentials, for as much as these too shall be determined and ordained by the law. THE FAMILY, A NATURAL SOCIETY Working along these lines upon the data given by experience, personal as well as through the proxy of history, the philosopher finds in man's nature, considered physiologically and psychologically, the aptitude, propensity, and, both as a general thing and for mankind at large, the need of the matrimonial relation. Seeing the natural and needful purpose to which this relation shapes itself to be in full the mutually perfecting compensation of common life between man and woman, as well as the procreation and education of the child, and keeping in mind that Nature's Lawgiver has in view the rational development of the race (or human nature at large) as well as of the individual, we conclude not only to abiding rational love as its distinguishing characteristic, but to monogamy and a stability that is exclusive of absolute divorce. This gives us the essential requisites of domestic society, a stable union of man and wife bound together to work for a fixed common good to themselves and humanity. When this company is filled out with children and its incidental complement of household servants, we have domestic society in its fullness. It is created under mandate of the natural law, for though this or that individual may safely eschew matrimony for some good purpose, mankind may not. The individual in exception need not be concerned about the purpose of the Lawgiver, as human nature is so constituted that mankind will not fail of its fulfilment. The efficient cause of this domestic union in the concrete instance is the free consent of the initial couple, but the character of the juridical bond which they thus freely accept is determined for them by the natural law according to Nature's full purpose. Husband and wife may see to their personal benefit in choosing to establish a domestic community, but the interests of the child and of the future race are safeguarded by the law. The essential purpose of this society we have stated above. The essential requisite of authority takes on a divided character of partnership, because of the separate functions of husband and wife requiring authority as well as calling for harmonious agreement upon details of common interest: but the headship of final decision is put by the law, as a matter of ordinary course, in the man, as is shown by his natural characteristics marking him for the preference. The essential limitations forbid plural marriage, race-suicide, sexual excess, unnecessary separation, and absolute divorce. THE STATE, A NATURAL SOCIETY On the same principle of human aptitude, propensity, and need for the individual and the race, we find the larger social unit of civil society manifested to us as part of the Divine set purpose with regard to human nature, and so under precept of the natural law. Again, the exceptional individual may take to solitude for some ennobling purpose; but he is an exception, and the bulk of mankind will not hesitate to fulfil Nature's bidding and accomplish Nature's purpose. In the concrete instance civil society, though morally incumbent on man to establish, still comes into existence by the exercise of his free activity. We have seen the same of domestic society, which begins by the mutual free consent of man and woman to the acceptance of the bond involving all the natural rights and duties of the permanent matrimonial relation. The beginning of civil society as an historical fact has taken on divers colours, far different at different times and places. It has arisen by peaceful expansion of a family into a widespread kindred eventually linked together in a civil union. It has sprung from the multiplication of independent families in the colonizing oF undeveloped lands. It has come into being under the strong hand of conquest enforcing law, order, and civil organization, not always justly, upon a people. There have been rare instances of its birth through the tutoring efforts of the gentler type of civilizers, who came to spread the Gospel. But the juridical origin is not obviously identical with this. History alone exhibits only the manifold confluent causes which moved men into an organized civil unit. The juridical cause is quite another matter. This is the cause which of its character under the natural law puts the actual moral bond of civil union upon the many in the concrete, imposes the concrete obligation involving all the rights, duties, and powers native to a State, even as the mutual consent of the contracting parties creates the mutual bond of initial domestic society. This determinant has been under dispute among Catholic teachers. The common view of Scholastic philosophy, so ably developed by Francis Suarez, S.J., sets it in the consent of the constituent members, whether given explicitly in the acceptance of a constitution, or tacitly by submitting to an organization of another's making, even if this consent be not given by immediate surrender, but by gradual process of slow and often reluctant acquiescence in the stability of a common union for the essential civil purpose. In the early fifties of the nineteenth century Luigi Taparelli, S.J., borrowing an idea from C. de Haller of Berne, brilliantly developed a theory of the juridical origin of civil government, which has dominated in the Italian Catholic schools even to the present day, as well as in Catholic schools in Europe, whose professors of ethics have been of Italian training. In this theory civil society has grown into being from the natural multiplication of cognate families, and the gradual extension of parental power. The patriarchal State is the primitive form, the normal type, though by accident of circumstance States may begin here or there from occupation of the same wide territory under feudal ownership; by organization consequent upon conquest; or in rarer instances by the common consent of independent colonial freeholders. These two Catholic views part company also in declaring the primitive juridical determinant of the concrete subject of supreme authority (see AUTHORITY, CIVIL). To-day the Catholic schools are divided between these two positions. We shall subjoin below other theories of the juridical origin of the State, which have no place in Catholic thought for the simple reason that they exclude the natural character of civil society and throw to the winds the principles logically inseparable from the existing natural law. With regard to the essential elements in civil society fixed by the natural law, it is first to be noted that the normal unit is the family: for not only has the family come historically before the commonwealth, but the natural needs of man lead him first to that social combination, in pursuit of a natural result only to be obtained thereby; and it is logically only subsequent that the purpose of civil society comes into human life. Of course this does not mean that individuals actually outside of the surroundings of family life cannot be constituent members of civil society with full civic rights and duties, but they are not the primary unit; they are in the nature of things the exception, however numerous they may be, and beyond the family limit of perfectibility it is in the interest of complementary development that civil activity is exercised. The State cannot eliminate the family; neither can it rob it of its inalienable rights, nor bar the fulfilment of its inseparable duties, though it may restrict the exercise of certain family activities so as to co-ordinate them to the benefit of the body politic. Secondly, the natural object pursued by man in his ultimate social activity is perfect temporal happiness, the satisfaction, to wit, of his natural faculties to the full power of their development within his capacity, on his way, of course, to eternal felicity beyond earth. Man's happiness cannot be handed over to him, or thrust upon him by another here on earth; for his nature supposes that his possession of it, and so too in large measure his achievement of it, shall be by the exercise of his native faculties. Hence, civil society is destined by the natural law to give him his opportunity, i. e. to give it to all who share its citizenship. This shows the proximate natural purpose of the State to be: first, to establish and preserve social order, a condition, namely, wherein every man, as far as may be, is secured in the possession and free exercise of all his rights, natural and legal, and is held up to the fulfilment of his duties as far as they bear upon the common weal; secondly, to put within reasonable reach of all citizens a fair allowance of the means of temporal happiness. This is what is known as external peace and prosperity, prosperity being also denominated the relatively perfect sufficiency of life. There are misconceptions enough about the generic purpose native to all civil society. De Haller thought that there is none such; that civil purposes are all specific, peculiar to each specific State. Kant limited it to external peace. The Manchester School did the same, leaving the citizen to work out his subsistence and development as best he may. The Evolutionist consistently makes it the survival of the fittest, on the way to developing a better type. The modern peril is to treat the citizen merely as an industrial unit, mistaking national material progress for the goal of civic energy; or as a military unit, looking to self-preservation as the nation's first if not only aim. Neither material progress nor martial power, nor merely intellectual civilization, can fill the requirements of existing and expanding human nature. The State, while protecting a man's rights, must put him in the way of opportunity for developing his entire nature, physical, mental, and moral. Thirdly, the accomplishment of this calls for an authority which the Lawgiver of Nature, because he has ordained this society, has put within the competency of the State, and which, because of its reach, extending as it does to life and death, to reluctant subjects and to the posterity of its citizenship, surpasses the capacity of its citizenship to create out of any mere conventional surrender of natural rights. The question of the origin of civil power and its concentration in this or that subject is like the origin of society itself, a topic of debate. Catholic philosophy is agreed that it is conferred by Nature's Lawgiver directly upon the social depositary thereof, as parental supremacy is upon the father of a family. But the determination of the depositary is another matter. The doctrine of Suarez makes the community itself the depositary, immediately and naturally consequent upon its establishment of civil society, to be disposed of then by their consent, overt or tacit, at once or by degrees, according as they determine for themselves a form of government. This is the only true philosophical sense of the dictum that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed". The Taparelli school makes the primitive determinant out of an existing prior right of another character, which passes naturally into this power. Primitively this is parental supremacy grown to patriarchal dimensions and resulting at the last in supreme civil power. Secondarily, it may arise from other rights, showing natural aptitude preferentially in one subject or another, as that of feudal ownership of the territory of the community, capacity to extricate order out of chaos in moments of civic confusion, military ability and success in case of just conquest, and, finally, in remote instances by the consent of the governed. Finally, the means by which the commonwealth will work toward its ideal condition of the largest measure of peace and prosperity attainable are embraced in the just exercise, under direction of civil authority, of the physical, mental, and moral activities of the members of the community: and here the field of human endeavour is wide and expansive. However, the calls upon the individual by the governmental power are necessarily limited by the scope of the natural purpose of the State and by the inalienable prior rights and inseparable duties conferred or imposed upon the individual by the Natural Law. RELIGIOUS SOCIETY de facto A SUPERNATURAL SOCIETY lf we analyze the moral development of man, we find looming large his obligation to worship his Creator, not only privately, but publicly, not only as an individual, but in social union. This opens up another kind of society ordered by the natural law, to wit, religious society. An examination of this in the natural order and by force of reason alone would seem to show that man, though morally obliged to social worship, was morally free to establish a parallel organization for such worship or to merge its functions with those of the State, giving a double character to the enlarged society, namely, civil and religious. Historically, among those who knew not Divine revelation, men would seem to have been inclined more to the latter; but not always so. Of course, the purpose and means of this religious social duty are so related to those of a merely civil society that considerable care would have to be exercised in adjusting the balance of intersecting rights and duties, to define the relative domains of religious and civil authority, and, finally, to adjudicate supremacy in case of direct apparent conflict. The development of all this has been given an entirely different turn through the intervention of the Creator in His creation by positive law revealed to man, changing the natural status into a higher one, eliminating natural religious society, and at the last establishing through the mission of our Lord Jesus Christ an universal and unfailing religious society in the Church. This is a supernatural religious society. (See CHURCH.) NON-CATHOLIC THEORIES Thomas Hobbes, starting from the assumption which Calvin had propagated that human nature is itself perverse and man essentially inept for consorting with his fellows, made the natural state of man to be one of universal and continuous warfare. This, of course, excludes the Maker of man from having destined him originally to society, since he would in Hobbes's view have given him a nature exactly the reverse of a proportioned means. Hobbes thought that he found in man such selfish rivalry, weak cowardice, and greed of self-glorification as to make him naturally prey upon his fellows and subdue them, if he could, to his wants, making might to be the only source of right. However, finding life intolerable (if not impossible) under such conditions, he resorted to a social pact with other men for the establishment of peace, and, as that was a prudent thing to do, man, adds Hobbes, was thus following the dictates of reason and in that sense the law of nature. On this basis Hobbes could and did make civil authority consist in nothing more than the sum of the physical might of the people massed in a chosen centre of force. This theory was developed in the "Leviathan" of Hobbes to account for the existence of civil authority and civil society, but its author left his reader to apply the same perversity of nature and exercise of physical force for the taking of a wife or wives and establishing domestic society. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, though borrowing largely from Hobbes and fearlessly carrying some of his principles to their most extreme issue, had a view in part his own. As for the family, he was content to leave it as a natural institution, with a stability, however, commensurate only with the need of putting the offspring within reach of self-preservation. Not so for the State. Man naturally, he contended, was sylvan and solitary, a fine type of indolent animal, mating with his like and living in the pleasant ease of shady retreats by running waters. He was virtuous, sufficient to himself for his own needs, essentially free, leaving others alone in their freedom, and desirous of being left alone in his. His life was not to be disturbed by the fever of ambitious desires, the burden of ideas, or the restriction of moral laws. Unfortunately, he had a capacity and an itch for self-improvement, and his inventive genius, creating new conveniences, started new deeds, and to meet these more readily, he entered into transitory agreements with other men. Then came differences, fraud, and quarrels, and so ended the tranquil ease and innocence of his native condition. Through sheer necessity of self-defence, as in the theory of Hobbes, he took to the establishment of civil society. To do so without loss of personal freedom, there was but one way, namely, that all the members should agree to merge all their rights, wills, and personalities in a unit moral person and will, leaving the subject member the satisfaction that he was obeying but his own will thus merged, and so in possession still of full liberty in every act. Thus civil authority was but the merger of all rights and wills in the one supreme right and will of the community. The merging agreement was Rousseau's "Social Contract". Unfortunately for its author, as he himself confessed, the condition of perfect, self-sufficient, lawless man was never seen on land or sea; and his social contract had no precedent in all the centuries of the history of man. His dream ignored man s inalienable rights, took no account of coercing wills that would not agree, nor of the unauthorized merging of the wills of posterity, and drained all the vitality as well out of authority as out of obedience. He left authority a power shorn of the requisites essential for the purpose of civil security. The evolutionist, who has left the twisted turn of all his theories in much of the common language of the day, even after the theories themselves have died to all serious scientific acceptance, wished to make ethics a department of materialistic biology and have the aggregate of human entities assemble by the same physical laws that mass cells into a living being. Man's native tendency to persist, pure egoism, made him shrink from the danger of destruction or injury at the hands of other individuals, and this timidity became a moving force driving him to compound with his peers into a unit source of strength without which he could not persist. From common life in this unit man's egoism began to take on a bit of altruism, and men acquired at the last a sense of the common good, which replaced their original timidity as the spring of merging activity. Later mutual sympathy put forth its tendrils, a sense of unity sprang up, and man had a civil society. Herein was latent the capacity for expressing the general will, which when developed became civil authority. This evolutionary process is still in motion toward the last stand foreseen by the theorist, a universal democracy clad in a federation of the world. All this has been seriously and solemnly presented to our consideration with a naive absence of all sense of humour, with no suspicion that the human mind naturally refuses to confound the unchanging action of material attraction and repulsion with human choice; or to mistake the fruit of intellectual planning and execution for the fortuitous results of blind force. We are not cowards all, and have not fled to society from the sole promptings of fear, but from the natural desire we have of human development. Authority for mankind is not viewed as the necessary resultant of the necessary influx of all men's wills to one goal, but is recognized to be a power to loose and to bind in a moral sense the wills of innumerable freemen. The neo-pagan theory, renewing the error of Plato and in a measure of Aristotle also, has made the individual and the family mere creatures and chattels of the State, and, pushing the error further, wishes to orientate all moral good and evil, all right and duty from the authority of the State, whose good as a national unit is paramount. This theory sets up the State as an idol for human worship and eventually, if the theory were acted upon, though its authors dream it not, for human destruction. The historical school mistaking what men have done for what men should do and, while often missing the full induction of the past, scornfully rejecting as empty apriorism deductive reasoning from the nature of man, presents a materialistic, evolutionary, and positivistic view of human society, which in no way appeals to sane reason. No more does the theory of Kant, as applied to society in the Hegelian development of it; though, owing to its intellectual character and appearance of ultimate analysis, it has found favour with those who seek philosophic principles from sources of so-called pure metaphysics. It would be idle to present here with Kant an analysis of the assumption of the development of all human right from the conditions of the use of liberty consistent with the general law of universal liberty, and the creation of civil government as an embodiment of universal liberty in the unified will of all the constituents of the State. SUAREZ, De Opere Sex Dierum, V. vii; IDEM, Defensio Fidei, III, ii, iii; IDEM, De Legibus, III, ii, iii, iv; COSTA-ROSETTI, Philosophia Moralis (Innsbruck, 1886); DE HALLER, Restauration de la Science Politique; TAPARELLI, Dritto Naturale (Rome, 1855); MEYER, Institutiones Juris Naturalis (Freiburg, 1900); HOBBES, Leviathan (Cambridge University Press); ROUSSEAU, Du Contrat Social (Paris, 1896), The Social Contract, tr. TOZER (London, 1909); SPENCER, The Study of Sociology (London); COMTE, Les Principes du Positivisme; SCHAFFLE, Structure et La Vie du Corps Social; BLUNTSCHLI, The Theory of the State (Oxford translation, Clarendon Press, 1901); STERRETT, The Ethics of Hegel (Boston, 1893); WOODROW WILSON, The Stale (Boston, 1909). CHARLES MACKSEY Society The Catholic Church Extension Society IN THE UNITED STATES The first active agitation for a church extension or home mission society for the Catholic Church in North America was begun in 1904 by an article of the present writer, published in the "American Ecclesiastical Review" (Philadelphia). This article was followed by a discussion in the same review, participated in by several priests, and then by a second article of the writer's. On 18 October, 1905, the discussion which these articles aroused took form, and, under the leadership of the Most Reverend James Edward Quigley, Archbishop of Chicago, a new society, called The Catholic Church Extension Society of the United States of America, was organized at a meeting held in the archbishop's residence at Chicago. The following were present at that meeting and became the first board of governors of the society: + The Archbishops of Chicago and Santa Fe, + The Bishop of Wichita, + The present Bishop of Rockford, + Reverends Francis C. Kelley, G. P. Jennings, E. P. Graham, E. A. Kelly, J. T. Roche, B. X. O'Reilly, F. J. Van Antwerp, F. A. O'Brien; + Messrs. M. A. Fanning, Anthony A. Hirst, William P. Breen, C. A. Plamondon, J. A. Roe, and S. A. Baldus. All these are still (1911) connected with the church extension movement, except Archbishop Bourgade of Santa Fé, who has since died, Reverends E. P. Graham and E. A. O'Brien, and Mr. C. A. Plamondon, who for one reason or another have found it impossible to continue in the work. The Archbishop of Chicago was made chairman of the board, the present writer was elected president, and Mr. William P. Breen, LL.D., of Fort Wayne, Indiana, treasurer. Temporary headquarters were established at Lapeer, Michigan. The second meeting was held in December of the same year, when the constitution was adopted and the work formally launched. A charter was granted on 25 December, 1905, by the State of Michigan to the new society, whose objects were set forth as follows: "To develop the missionary spirit in the clergy and people of the Catholic Church in the United States. To assist in the erection of parish buildings for poor and needy places. To support priests for neglected or poverty-stricken districts. To send the comfort of religion to pioneer localities. In a word, to preserve the faith of Jesus Christ to thousands of scattered Catholics in every portion of our own land, especially in the country districts and among immigrants." In January, 1907, the headquarters of the society were moved to Chicago, and the president was transferred to that archdiocese. In April, 1906, the society began the publication of a quarterly bulletin called "Extension". In May, 1907, this quarterly was enlarged and changed into a monthly; its circulation has steadily increased, and at the present time (1911) it has over one hundred thousand paid subscribers. On 7 June, 1907, the society received its first papal approval by an Apostolic Letter of Pius X addressed to the Archbishop of Chicago. In this letter His Holiness gave unqualified praise to the young organization and bestowed on its supporters and members many spiritual favours. On 9 June, 1910, the pope issued a special Brief by which the society was raised to the dignity of a canonical institution directly under his own guidance and protection. By the terms of this Brief, the Archbishop of Chicago is always to be chancellor of the Society. The president must be appointed by the Holy Father himself. His term of office is not more than five years. The board of governors has the right to propose three names to the Holy See for this office, and to elect, according to their laws, all other officers of the society. The Brief also provided for a cardinal protector, living in Rome. His Holiness named Cardinal Sebastian Martinelli for this office, and later on appointed the present writer the first president under the new regulations. The Brief limits the society's activities to the United States and its possessions. A similar Brief was issued to the Church Extension Society in Canada. Since the organization of the church extension movement, the American society has expended over half a million dollars in missionary work. It has made about seven hundred gifts and loans to poor missions, and has had about five hundred and fifty chapels built in places where no Catholic Church or chapel existed previously and the scattered people could attend Mass only with great difficulty. Both societies have been educating many students for the missions, and both have circulated much good Catholic literature. The American society operates a "chapel car" (donated by one of its members, Ambrose Petry, K. C. S. G.), which carries a missionary into the remote districts along railroad lines, preaching missions and encouraging scattered Catholics to form centres with their own little chapels as beginnings of future parishes. The Holy Father has particularly blessed this chapel car work, and has given a gold medal to the donor of the car and to the society in recognition of its usefulness. Another chapel car, much larger and better equipped, is now about to be built. The society has interested itself very greatly in the missionary work of Porto Rico and the Philippine Islands, and has achieved substantial results. The Canadian society has been very active in saving the Ruthenian Catholics of the Canadian North-West to the Faith, against which an active war has been waged, especially by the Presbyterians. It was principally through the publicity given to this activity by the Canadian Society that the situation was brought to the attention of the bishops in Canada, who at the first Plenary Council decided to raise $100,000 for this work. The American society's first quinquennial report shows splendid progress, and the present situation of both societies gives promise of great things to come. A remarkable thing about the church extension movement is the ready response of the wealthier class of Catholics in the United States to its appeals. Some very large donations have been given. The Ancient Order of Hibernians is raising a fund of $50,000 for chapel building, and the Women's Catholic Order of Foresters $25,000. The directors intend to erect a college for the American mission. The church extension movement, as it exists in the United States and Canada, has no close parallels in other countries, but is not unlike the Boniface Association in Germany or the OEuvre of St. Francis de Sales in France. Membership is divided into founders ($5000), life members ($1000), fifteen-year members ($100), and Annual Members ($10). There is a Women's Auxiliary in both societies which now begins to flourish. The American society has also a branch for children called the "Child Apostles". From the pennies of the children, chapels are to be built and each one called the "Holy Innocents"; the children have just completed (1911) the amount needed for their first chapel. The present officers of the American society are: + His Eminence, Sebastian Cardinal Martinelli, Cardinal Protector; + Most Rev. James E. Quigley, D.D., Chancellor; + Most Rev. S. G. Messmer, D.D., Vice-Chancellor; + Very Rev. Francis C. Kelley, D.D., LL.D., President; + Rev. E. B. Ledvina, Vice-President and General Secretary; + Rev. E. L. Roe, Director of the Women's Auxiliary and Vice-President; + Rev. W. D. O'Brien, Director of the Child Apostles and Vice-President; + Mr. Leo Doyle, General Counsel and Vice-President; + Mr. John A. Lynch, Treasurer. The members of the executive committee are: + Most Rev. James E. Quigley, D.D.; + Very Rev. Francis C. Kelley, D.D., LL.D., + Rev. Edward A. Kelly, LL.D.; + Messrs. Ambrose Petry, K. C. S. G., Richmond Dean, Warren A. Cartier, and Edward E. Carry. On the board of governors are the Archbishops of Chicago, San Francisco, Milwaukee, Boston, New Orleans, Santa Fé, Oregon City, with the bishops of Covington, Detroit, Wichita, Duluth, Brooklyn, Trenton, Mobile, Rockford, Kansas City, Pittsburgh and Helena, and distinguished priests and laymen. IN CANADA The church extension movement was organized in Canada as an independent society (bearing the name of "The Catholic Church Extension Society of Canada") by the + Most Reverend Donatus Sbarretti, Delegate Apostolic of that country, + Most Rev. Fergus Patrick McEvay, D.D., Archbishop of Toronto, + Rev. Dr. A. E. Burke of the Diocese of Charlottetown, + Very Rev. Monsignor A. A. Sinnott, secretary of the Apostolic Delegation, + the Rev. Dr. J. T. Kidd, chancellor of Toronto, + the Right Honourable Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, K. C. M. G., Chief Justice of Canada, + and the present writer. The Canadian society at once purchased the "Catholic Register", a weekly paper, enlarged it, and turned it into the official organ of the work. The circulation of this paper has increased marvellously. The new society in Canada received a Brief, similar to that granted the American society, establishing it canonically. The same cardinal protector was appointed for both organizations. The Archbishop of Toronto was made chancellor of the Canadian society, and Very Rev. Dr. A. E. Burke was appointed president for the full term of five years. The officers of the Canadian society are: + His Eminence Cardinal Martinelli, Protector; + The Archbishop of Toronto (see vacant), Chancellor; + Very Rev. A. E. Burke, D.D., LL.D., President; + Rev. J. T. Kidd, D.D., Secretary; + Rev. Hugh J. Canning, Diocesan Director; + The Archbishop of Toronto; + Right Hon. Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, K. C. M. G., + and the President, Executive Committee. FRANCIS C. KELLEY. Society of Foreign Missions of Paris Society of Foreign Missions of Paris The Society of Foreign Missions of Paris was established in 1658-63, its chief founders being Mgr Pallu, Bishop of Heliopolis, Vicar Apostolic of Tongking, and Mgr Lambert de la Motte, Bishop of Bertyus, Vicar Apostolic of Conchin-China. Both bishops left France (1660-62) to go to their respective missions and as true travellers of Christ they crossed Persia and India on foot. The object of the new society was and is still the evangelization of infidel countries, by founding churches and raising up a native clergy under the jurisdiction of the bishops. In order that the society might recruit members and administer its property, a house was established in 1663 by the priests whom the vicars Apostolic had appointed their agents. This house, whose directors were to form young priests to the apostolic life and transmit to the bishops the offerings made by charity, was, and is still situated in Paris in the Rue de Bac. Known from the beginning as the seminary of Foreign Missions, its secured the approval of Alexander VII, and the legal recognition, still in force, of the French Government. The nature and organization of the society deserves special mention. It is not a religious order but a congregation, a society of secular priests, united as members of the same body, not by vows but by the rule approved by the Holy See, by community of object, and the seminary of Foreign Missions, which is the centre of the society and the common basis which sustains the other parts. On entering the society the missionaries promise to devote themselves until death to the service of the missions, while the society assures them in return, besides the means of sanctification and perseverance, all necessary temporal support and assistance. There is no superior general; the bishops, vicars Apostolic, superiors of missions and board of directors of the seminary are the superiors of the society. The directors of the seminary are chosen from among the missionaries and each group of missions is represented by a director. The bishops and vicars Apostolic are appointed by the pope, after nomination by the missionaries, and presentation by the directors of the seminary. In their missions they depend only on Propaganda and through it on the pope. No subject aged more than thirty-five may be admitted to the seminary nor may anyone become a member of the society before having spent three years in the mission field. Several points of this rule were determined from the earliest year of the society's existence, and others were established by degrees and as experience pointed out their usefulness. By this rule the society has lived and according to it its history has been outlined. This history is difficult, for owing to the length of the journeys, the infrequent communication, and the poverty of resources the missions have developed with difficulty. The chief events of the first period (1658-1700) are: the publication of the book "Institutions apostoliques", which contains the germ of the principles of the rule, the foundation of the general seminary at Juthia, (Siam), the evangelization of Tongking, Cochin China, Cambodia, and Siam, where more than 40,000 Christians were baptized, the creation of an institute of Annamite nuns known as "Lovers of the Cross", the establishment of rules among catechists, the ordination of thirty native priests. Besides these events of purely religious interest there were others in the political order which emphasized the patriotism of these evangelical labourers: through their initiative a more active trade was established between Indo-China, the Indies, and France; embassies were sent from place to place; treaties were signed; a French expedition to Siam took possession of Bangkok, Mergin, and Jonselang, and France was on the verge of possessing an Indo-Chinese empire when the blundering of subalterns ruined an undertaking the failure of which had an unfortunate influence on the missions. But the most important work of the vicars Apostolic and the society is the application of the fruitful principle of the organization of churches by native priests and bishops. Thenceforth the apostolate in its progress has has followed this plan in every part of the world with scrupulous fidelity and increasing success. In the second half of the eighteenth century it was charged with the missions which the Jesuits had possessed in India prior to their suppression in Portugal. Many of the Jesuits remained there. The missions thereupon assumed new life, especially at Setchoan, where remarkable bishops, Mgr Pottier and Mgr Dufresse, gave a strong impulse to evangelical work; and in Cochin China, where Mgr Pineau de Behaine performed signal service for the king of that country as his agent in making with France a treaty, which was the first step towards the splendid situation of France in Indo-China. At the end of the eighteenth century the French revolution halted the growth of the society, which had previously been very rapid. At that time it had six bishops, a score of missionaries, assisted by 135 native priests; in the various missions there were nine seminaries with 250 students, and 300,000 Christians. Each year the number of baptisms rose on a average of 3000 to 3500; that of infant baptisms in articulo mortis was more than 100,000. In the nineteenth century the development of the society and its missions was rapid and considerable. Several causes contributed to this; chiefly the charity of the Propagation of the Faith and the Society of the Holy Childhood; each bishop receives annually 1200 francs, each mission has its general needs and works allowance, which varies according to its importance, and may amount to from 10,000 to 30,000 francs. The second cause was persecution. Fifteen missionaries died in prison or were beheaded during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and the beginning of the nineteenth century; but after that the martyrs among the missionaries were very numerous. The best known are Mgr Dufresse, vicar Apostolic of Se-tchoan, beheaded in 1815; Gagelin, Marchand, Jaccard, Cornay, and Dumoulin-Borie from 1833 to 1838; and from 1850 to 1862 Schoeffler, Vénard, Bonnard, Néron, Chapdelaine, Néel, Cuenot, vicar Apostolic of Eastern Cochin China. If, besides these, mention were made of the native priests, catechists, and nuns, in short of all who died for Christ, we should have a record of one of the bloodiest holocausts in history. These persecutions were described in Europe by books, pamphlets, annals, and journals, arousing the pity of some and the anger of others, and inspiring numerous young men either with the desire or martyrdom or that of evangelization. They moved European nations, especially France and England, to intervene in Indo-China and China, and open up in these countries an era of liberty and protection till then unknown. Another cause of the progress of the missionaries was the ease and frequency of communication in consequence of the invention of steam and the opening of the Suez Canal. A voyage could be made safely in one month which formerly required eight to ten months amid many dangers. The following statistics of the missions confided to the Society will show this development at a glance: Missions of Japan and Korea -- Tokio, Nagasaki, Osaka, Hakodate, Korea, total number of Catholics, 138,624; churches or chapels, 238; bishops and missionaries, 166; native priests, 48; catechists, 517; seminaries, 4; seminarists, 81; communities of men and women, 44, containing 390 persons; schools, 161, with 9024 pupils; orphanages and work-rooms, 38, with 988 children; pharmacies, dispensaries, and hospitals, 19. Missions of China and Tibet -- Western, Eastern, and Southern Se-tchoan, Yun-nan, Kouy-tcheou, Kouang-ton, Kouang-si, Southern Manchuria, Northern Manchuria. -- Catholics, 272,792; churches or chapels, 1392; bishops and missionaries, 408; native priests, 191; catechists, 998; seminaries, 19; seminarists, 661; communities of men and women, 23, with 222 members; schools, 1879, with 31,971 pupils; orphanages and work-rooms, 132, with 4134 children; pharmacies, dispensaries, and hospitals, 364. Missions of Eastern Indo-China -- Tongking, Cochin China, Cambodia -- Catholic population, 632,830; churches or chapels, 2609; bishops and missionaries, 365; native priests, 491; catechists, 1153; seminaries, 14; seminarists, 1271; communities of men and women, 91, with 2538 persons; schools, 1859, with 58,434 pupils; orphanages and work-rooms, 106, with 7217 children; pharmacies, dispensaries, and hospitals, 107. Missions of Western Indo-China -- Siam, Malacca, Laos, Southern Burma, Northern Burma -- Catholics, 132,226; churches or chapels, 451; bishops and missionaries, 199; native priests, 42; catechists, 242; seminaries, 3; seminarists, 81; communities of men and women, 47, with 529 members; schools, 320, with 21,306 pupils; orphanages and work-rooms, 132, with 3757 children; pharmacies, dispensaries, and hospitals, 86. Missions of India -- Pondicherry, Mysore, Coimbatore, Kumbakonam. -- Catholics, 324,050; churches or chapels, 1048; bishops and missionaries, 207; native priests, 67; catechists, 274; seminaries, 4; seminarists, 80; communities of men and women, 54, with 787 members; schools, 315, with 18,693 pupils; orphanages and work-rooms, 57, with 2046 children; pharmacies, dispensaries, and hospitals, 41. In addition to these missionaries actively engaged in mission work, there are some occupied in the establishments called common, because they are used by the whole society. Indeed the development of the society necessitated undertakings which were not needed in the past. Hence a sanatorium for sick missionaries has been established at Hong-Kong on the coast of China; another in India among the Nilgiri mountains, of radiant appearance and invigorating climate, and a third in France. In thinking of the welfare of the body, that of the soul was not lost sight of, and a house of spiritual retreat was founded at Hong-Kong, wither all the priests of the society may repair to renew their priestly and apostolic fervour. To this house was added a printing establishment whence issue the most beautiful works of the Far East, dictionaries, grammars, books of theology, piety, Christian doctrine, and pedagogy. Houses of correspondence, or agencies, were established in the Far East, at Shanghai, Hong-Kong, Saigon, Singapore, and one at Marseilles, France. The Seminary of the Foreign Missions which long had only one section, has for twenty years had two. LUQUET, Lettres à l'évêque de Langres sur la cong. des Missions-Etrangères (Paris, 1842); LAUNAY, Hist. générale de la Société des Missions-Etrangères (Paris, 1894); Docum. hist sur la Soci. des Missions-Etrangères (Paris, 1904); Hist. des missions de l'Inde (Paris, 1898); Hist. de la mission du Thibet (Paris, 1903); Hist. des missions de Chine 8 (Paris, 1903-8); LOUVET, La Cochinchine religieuse (Paris, 1885); DALLET, Hist. de l'eglise de Corée (Paris, 1874); Marnas, La religion de Jésus ressuscité au Japon (Paris, 1896). A. LAUNAY The Jesuits (The Society of Jesus) The Society of Jesus (Company of Jesus, Jesuits) See also DISTINGUISHED JESUITS, JESUIT APOLOGETIC, EARLY JESUIT GENERALS, and four articles on the history of the Society: PRE-1750, 1750-1773, 1773-1814, and 1814-1912. The Society of Jesus is a religious order founded by Saint Ignatius Loyola. Designated by him "The Company of Jesus" to indicate its true leader and its soldier spirit, the title was Latinized into "Societas Jesu" in the Bull of Paul III approving its formation and the first formula of its Institute ("Regimini militantis ecclesia", 27 Sept., 1540). The term "Jesuit" (of fifteenth-century origin, meaning one who used too frequently or appropriated the name of Jesus), was first applied to the society in reproach (1544-52), and was never employed by its founder, though members and friends of the society in time accepted the name in its good sense. The Society ranks among religious institutes as a mendicant order of clerks regular, that is, a body of priests organized for apostolic work, following a religious rule, and relying on alms for their support [Bulls of Pius V, "Dum indefessae", 7 July, 1571; Gregory XIII, "Ascendente Domino", 25 May, 1585]. As has been explained under the title "Ignatius Loyola", the founder began his self-reform, and the enlistment of followers, entirely prepossessed with the idea of the imitation of Christ, and without any plan for a religious order or purpose of attending to the needs of the days. Unexpectedly prevented from carrying out this idea, he offered his services and those of this followers to the pope, "Christ upon Earth", who at once employed him in such works as were most pressing at the moment. It was only after this and just before the first companions broke to go at the pope's command to various countries, that the resolution to found an order was taken, and that Ignatius was commissioned to draw up Constitutions. This he did slowly and methodically; first introducing rules and customs and seeing how they worked. He did not codify them for the first six years. Then three years were given to formulating laws, the wisdom of which had been proven by experiment. In the last six years of the Saint's life the Constitutions so composed were finally revised and put into practice everywhere. This sequence of events explains at once how the society, though devoted to the following of Christ, as though there were nothing else in the world to care for, is also excellently adapted to the needs of the day. It began to attend to them before it began to legislate; and its legislation was the codification of those measures which had been proved by experience to be apt to preserve its preliminary religious principle among men actually devoted to the requirements of the Church in days not unlike our own. The Society was not founded with the avowed intention of opposing Protestantism. Neither the papal letters of approbation nor the Constitutions of the order mention this as the object of the new foundation. When Ignatius began to devote himself to the service of the Church, he had probably not even heard of the names of the Protestant Reformers. His early plan was rather the conversion of Mohammedans, an idea which, a few decades after the final triumph of the Christians over the Moors in Spain, must have strongly appealed to the chivalrous Spaniard. The name "Societas Jesu" had been born by a military order approved and recommended by Pius II in 1450, the purpose of which was to fight against the Turks and aid in spreading the Christian faith. The early Jesuits were sent by Ignatius first to pagan lands or to Catholic countries; to Protestant countries only at the special request of the pope and to Germany, the cradle-land of the Reformation, at the urgent solicitation of the imperial ambassador. From the very beginning the missionary labours of the Jesuits among the pagans of India, Japan, China, Canada, Central and South America were as important as their activity in Christian countries. As the object of the society was the propagation and strengthening of the Catholic faith everywhere, the Jesuits naturally endeavored to counteract the spread of Protestantism. They became the main instruments of the Counter-Reformation; the re-conquest of southern and western Germany and Austria for the Church, and the preservation of the Catholic faith in France and other countries were due chiefly to their exertions. INSTITUTES, CONSTITUTIONS, LEGISLATION The official publication which constitutes all the regulations of the Society, its codex legum, is entitled "Institutum Societas Jesu" of which the latest edition was issued at Rome and Florence 1869-91 (for full biography see Sommervogel, V, 75-115; IX, 609-611; for commentators see X, 705-710). The Institute contains: + The special Bulls and other pontifical documents approving the Society and canonically determining or regulating its various works, and its ecclesiastical standing and relations. -- Besides those already mentioned, other important Bulls are those of: Paul III, "Injunctum nobis", 14 March, 1543; Julius III, "Exposcit debitum", 21 July, 1550; Pius V, "Æquum reputamus", 17 January, 1565; Pius VII, "Solicitudo omnium ecclesiarum", 7 August, 1814, Leo XIII, "Dolemus inter alia", 13 July, 1880. + The Examen Generale and Constitutions. The Examen contains subjects to be explained to postulants and points on which they are to be examined. The Constitutions are divided into ten parts: 1. admission; 2. dismissal; 3. novitiate; 4. scholastic training; 5. profession and other grades of membership; 6. religious vows and other obligations as observed by the Society; 7. missions and other ministries; 8. congregations, local and general assemblies as a means of union and uniformity; 9. the general and chief superiors; 10. the preservation of the spirit of the Society. Thus far in the Institute all is by Saint Ignatius, who has also added "Declarations" of various obscure parts. Then come: + Decrees of General Congregations, which have equal authority with the Constitutions; + Rules, general and particular, etc.; + Formulae or order of business for the congregations; + Ordinations of generals, which have the same authority as rules; + Instructions, some for superiors, others for those engaged in the missions or other works of the Society; + Industriae, or special counsels for superiors; + The Book of the Spiritual Exercises; and + the Ratio Studiorum, which have directive force only. The Constitutions as drafted by Ignatius and adopted finally by the first congregation of the Society, 1558, have never been altered. Ill-informed writers have stated that Lainez, the second general, made considerable changes in the saint's conception of the order; but Ignatius' own later recension of the Constitutions, lately reproduced in facsimile (Rome, 1908), exactly agree with the text of the Constitutions now in force, and contains no word by Lainez, not even in the declarations, or glosses added to the text, which are all the work of Ignatius. The text in use in the Society is a Latin version prepared under the direction of the third congregation, and subjected to a minute comparison with the Spanish original preserved in the Society's archives, during the fourth congregation (1581). These Constitutions were written after long deliberation between Ignatius and his companions in the founding of the Society, as at first it seemed to them that they might continue their work without the aid of a special Rule. They were the fruit of long experience and of serious meditation and prayer. Throughout they are inspired by an exalted spirit of charity and zeal for souls. They contain nothing unreasonable. To appreciate them, however, requires a knowledge of cannon law applied to monastic life and also of their history in the light of the times for which they were framed. Usually those who find fault with them either have never read them or else have misinterpreted them. Monod for instance, in his introduction to Böhmer's essay on the Jesuits ("Les jesuites", Paris, 1910, p. 13, 14) recalls how Michelet mistranslated the words of the Constitutions, p. VI, c. 5, obligationem ad peccatum, and made it appear that they require obedience even to the commission of sin, as if the text were obligatio ad peccandum, where the obvious meaning and purpose of the text is precisely to show that the transgression of the rules is not in itself sinful. Monod enumerates such men as Arnauld, Wolf, Lange, Ranke in the first edition of his "History", Hausser and Droysen, Philippson and Charbonnel, as having repeated the same error, although it has been refuted frequently since 1824, particularly by Gieseler, and corrected by Ranke in his second edition. Whenever the Constitutions enjoin what is already a serious moral obligation, or superiors, by virtue of their authority, impose a grave obligation, transgression is sinful; but this is true of such transgressions not only in the society but out of it. Moreover such commands are rarely given by the superiors and only when the good of the individual member or the common good imperatively demands it. The rule throughout is one of love inspired by wisdom, and must be interpreted in the spirit of charity which animates it. This is especially true of its provisions for the affectionate relations of members with superiors and with one another, by the manifestation of conscience, more or less practiced in every religious order, and by mutual correction when this may be necessary. It also applies to the methods employed to ascertain the qualification of members for various offices or ministries. The chief authority is vested in the general congregation, which elects the general, and could, for certain grave causes, depose him. This body could also (although there has never yet been an occasion for so doing) add new Constitutions and abrogate old ones. Usually this congregation is convened on the occasion of the death of a general, in order to elect a successor, and to make provisions for the government and welfare of the Society. It may also be called at other times for grave reasons. It consists of the general, when alive, and his assistants, the provincials, and two deputies from each province or territorial division of the society elected by the superiors and older professed members. Thus authority in the Society eventually rests on a democratic basis. But as there is no definite time for calling the general congregation which in fact rarely occurs except to elect a new general, the exercise of authority is usually in the hands of the general, in whom is vested the fullness of administrative power, and of spiritual authority. He can do anything within the scope of the Constitutions, and can even dispense with them for good causes, though he cannot change them. He resides at Rome, and has a council of assistants, five in number at present, one each for Italy, France, Spain, and the countries of Spanish origin, one for Germany, Austria, Poland, Belgium, Hungary, Holland, and one for English-speaking countries--England, Ireland, United States, Canada, and British colonies (except India). These usually hold office until the death of the general. Should the general through age or infirmity become incapacitated for governing the Society, a vicar is chosen by a general congregation to act for him. At his death he names one so to act until the congregation can meet and elect his successor. Next to him in order of authority comes the provincials, the heads of the Society, whether for an entire country, as England, Ireland, Canada, Belgium, Mexico, or, where these units are too large or too small to make convenient provinces they may be subdivided or joined together. Thus there are now four provinces in the United States: California, Maryland-New York, Missouri, New Orleans. In all there are now twenty-seven provinces. The provincial is appointed by the general, with ample administrative faculties. He too has a council of "counselors" and an "admonitor" appointed by the general. Under the provincial come the local superiors. Of these, rectors of colleges, provosts of professed houses, and masters of novices are appointed by the general; the rest by the provincial. To enable the general to make and control so many appointments, a free and ample correspondence is kept up, and everyone has the right of private communication with him. No superior, except the general, is named for life. Usually provincials and rectors of colleges hold office for three years. Members of the society fall into four classes: + Novices (whether received as lay brothers for the domestic and temporal services of the order, or as aspirants to the priesthood), who are trained in the spirit and discipline of the order, prior to making the religious vows. + At the end of two years the novices make simple vows, and, if aspirants to the priesthood, become formed scholastics; they remain in this grade as a rule from two to fifteen years, in which time they will have completed all their studies, pass (generally) a certain period in teaching, receive the priesthood, and go through a third year of novitiate or probation (the tertianship). According to the degree of discipline and virtue, and to the talents they display (the latter are normally tested by the examination for the Degree of Doctor of Theology) they may now become formed coadjutors or professed members of the order. + Formed coadjutors, whether formed lay brothers or priests, make vows which, though not solemn, are perpetual on their part; while the Society, on its side binds itself to them, unless they should commit some grave offense. + The professed are all priests, who make, besides the three usual solemn vows of religion, a fourth, of special obedience to the pope in the matter of missions, undertaking to go wherever they are sent, without even requiring money for the journey. They also make certain additional, but non-essential, simple vows, in the matter of poverty, and the refusal of external honours. The professed of the four vows constitute the kernel of the Society; the other grades are regarded as preparatory, or as subsidiary to this. The chief offices can be held by the professed alone; and though they may be dismissed, they must be received back, if willing to comply with the conditions that may be prescribed. Otherwise they enjoy no privileges, and many posts of importance, such as the government of colleges, may be held by members of other grades. For special reasons some are occasionally professed of three vows and they have certain but not all the privileges of the other professed. All live in community alike, as regards food, apparel, lodging, recreation, and all are alike bound by the rules of the Society. There are no secret Jesuits. Like other orders, the Society can, if it will, make its friends participators in its prayers, and in the merits of its good works; but it cannot make them members of the order, unless they live the life of the order. There is indeed the case of St. Francis Borgia, who made some of the probations in an unusual way, outside the houses of the order. But this was in order that he might be able to conclude certain business matters and other affairs of state, and thus appear the sooner in public as a Jesuit, not that he might remain permanently outside the common life. Novitiate and Training Candidates for admission come not only from the colleges conducted by the Society, but from other schools. Frequently post-graduate or professional students, and those who have already begun their career in business or professional life, or even in the priesthood, apply for admission. Usually the candidate applies in person to the provincial, and if he considers him a likely subject he refers him for examination to four of the more experienced fathers. They question him about the age, health, position, occupation of his parents, their religion and good character, their dependence on his services; about his own health, obligations such as debts, or other contractual relations; his studies, qualifications, moral character, personal motives as well as the external influences that may have lead him to seek admission. The results of their questioning and of their own observation they report severally to the provincial, who weighs their opinions carefully before deciding for or against the applicant. Any notable bodily or mental defect in the candidate, serious indebtedness or other obligation, previous membership in another religious order even for a day, indicating instability of vocation, unqualifies for admission. Undue influence, particularly if exercised by members of the order, would occasion stricter scrutiny that usual into the personal motives of the applicant. Candidates may enter at any time, but usually there is a fixed day each years for their admission, toward the close of the summer holidays, in order that all may begin their training, or probation, together. They spend the first ten days considering the manner of life they are to adopt, and its difficulties, the rules of the order, the obedience required of its members. They then make a brief retreat, meditating on what they have learned about the Society and examining their own motives and hopes for perserverance in the new mode of life. If all be satisfactory to them and to the superior or director who has charge of them, they are admitted as novices, wear the clerical costume (as there is no special Jesuit habit) and begin in earnest the life of members in the Society. They rise early, make a brief visit to the chapel, a meditation on some subject selected the night before, assist at Mass, review their meditation, breakfast, and then prepare for the day's routine. This consists of manual labor in or out of doors, reading books on spiritual topics, ecclesiastical history, biography, particularly of men or women distinguished for zeal and enterprise in missionary or educational fields. There is a daily conference by the master of the novices on some detail of the Institute, notes of which all are required to make, so as to be ready, when asked, to repeat the salient points. Wherever it is possible some are submitted to certain tests of their vocation or usefulness; to teaching catechism in the village churches; to attendance on the sick in hospitals; to going about on a pilgrimage or missionary journey without money or other provision. As soon as possible, all make the spiritual exercises for 30 days. This is really the chief test of a vocation, as it is also in epitome the main work of the two years of the novitiate, and for that matter of the entire life of a Jesuit. On these exercises the Constitutions, the life, and activity of the Society are based, so they are really the chief factor in forming the character of a Jesuit. In accordance with the ideals set forth in these exercises, of disinterested conformity with God's will, and of personal love of Jesus Christ, the novice is trained diligently in the meditative study of the truths of religion, in the habit of self-knowledge, in the constant scrutiny of his motives and of the actions inspired by them, in the correction of every form of self-deceit, illusion, plausible pretext, and in the education of his will, particularly in making choice of what seems best after careful deliberation and without self-seeking. Deeds, not words, are insisted upon as proof of genuine service, and a mechanical, emotional, or fanciful piety is not tolerated. As the novice gradually thus becomes master of his will, he grows more and more capable of offering to God the reasonable service enjoined by St. Paul, and seeks to follow the divine will, as manifested in Jesus Christ, by His vicar on earth, by the bishops appointed to rule His Church, by his more immediate or religious superiors, and by the civil powers rightfully exercising authority. This is what is meant by Jesuit obedience, the characteristic virtue of the order, such a sincere respect for authority as to accept its decisions and comply with them, not merely by outward performance but in all sincerity with the conviction that compliance is best, and that the command expresses for the time the will of God, as nearly as it can be ascertained. The noviceship lasts two years. On its completion the novice makes the usual vows of religion, the simple vow of chastity in the Society having the force of a diriment impediment to matrimony. During the noviceship but a brief time daily is devoted to reviewing previous studies. The noviceship over, the scholastic members, i.e., those who are to become priests in the Society, follow a special course in classics and mathematics lasting two years, usually in the same house with the novices. Then, in another house and neighbourhood, three years are given to the study of philosophy, about five years to teaching in one or other of the public colleges of the Society, four years to the study of theology, priestly orders being conferred after the third, and finally, one year more to another probation or noviceship, intended to help the young priest renew his spirit of piety and to learn how to utilize to the best of his ability all the learning and experience he has required. In exceptional cases, as in that of a priest who has finished his studies before entering the order, allowance is made and the training periods need not last over ten years, a good part of which is spent in active ministry. The object of the order is not limited to practicing any one class of good works, however laudable (as preaching, chanting office, doing penance, etc.), but to study, in the manner of the Spiritual Exercises, what Christ would have done, if He were living in our circumstances, and to carry out that ideal. Hence elevation and largeness of aim. Hence the motto of the Society, "Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam". Hence the selection of the virtue of obedience as the characteristic of the order, to be ready for any call, and to keep unity in every variety of work. Hence, by easy sequence, the omission of office in choir, of a special distinctive habit, of unusual penances. Where the Protestant reformers aimed at reorganizing the church at large according to their particular conceptions, Ignatius began with interior self-reform; and after that had been thoroughly established, then the earnest preaching of self-reform to others. That done, the church would not, and did not, fail to reform herself. Many religious distinguished themselves as educators before the Jesuits; but the Society was the first order which enjoined by its very Constitutions devotion to the cause of education. It was, in this sense, the first "teaching order". The ministry of the Society consists chiefly in preaching; teaching catechism, especially to children; administering the sacraments especially penance and the Eucharist; conducting missions in the parishes on the lines of the Spiritual Exercises; directing those who wish to follow those exercises in houses of retreat, seminaries or convents; taking care of parishes or collegiate churches; organizing pious confraternities, sodalities, unions of prayer, Bona Mors associations in their own and other parishes; teaching in schools of every grade--academic; seminary, university; writing books, pamphlets, periodical articles; going on foreign missions among uncivilized peoples. In liturgical functions the Roman Rite is followed. The proper exercise of all these functions is provided for by rules carefully framed by the general congregations or by the generals. All these regulations command the greatest respect on the part of every member. In practice the superior for the time being is the living rule--not that he can alter or abrogate any rule, but because he must interpret and determine its application. In this fact and in its consequences, the Society differs from every religious order antecedent to its foundation; to this principally, it owes its life, activity, and power to adapt its Institutes to modern conditions without need of change in that instrument or of reform in the body itself. The story of the foundation of the Society is told in the article Ignatius Loyola. Briefly, after having inspired his companions Peter Faber, Francis Xavier, James Lainez, Alonso Samerón, Nicolas Bobadilla, Simon Rodriquez, Claude Le Jay, Jean Codure, and Paschase Brouet with a desire to dwell in the Holy Land imitating the life of Christ, they first made vows of poverty and chastity at Montmartre, Paris, on 15 August, 1534, adding a vow to go to the Holy Land after two years. When this was found to be inpracticable, after waiting another year, they offered their services to the pope, Paul III. Fully another year was passed by some in university towns in Italy, by others at Rome, where, after encountering much opposition and slander, all met together to agree on a mode of life by which they might advance in evangelical perfection and help others in the same task. The first formula of the Institute was submitted to the pope and approved of viva voce, 3 September 1539, and formally, 27 September, 1540. Related Articles + Jesuit Apologetic + Distinguished Jesuits + History of the Jesuits Before the Suppression + Jesuit Generals Prior to the Suppression + History of the Jesuits During the Suppression (1750-1773) + History of the Jesuits During the Interim (1773-1814) + History of the Jesuits After the Restoration (1814-1912) Constitutions.--Corpus institutorum Societatis Jesu (Antwerp, Prague, Rome, 1635, 1702, 1705, 1707, 1709, 1869-70; Paris, partial edition, 1827-38); Gagliardi, De cognitione instituti (1841); Lancicius, De praestantia instit. Soc. Jesu (1644); Nadal, Scholia in constitutiones (1883); Suarez, Tract. de religione Soc. Jesu (1625); Humphrey, The Religious State (London, 1889), a digest of the treatise of Suarez; Oswald, Comment. in decem partes consit. Soc. Jesu (3rd ed., Brussels, 1901); Rules of the Society of Jesus (Washington, 1939; London 1863). J.H. POLLEN Jesuit Generals Prior To the Suppression (1541-1773) Jesuit Generals Prior to the Suppression of the Society (1541-1773) (1) St. Ignatius Loyola (19 April 1541-31 July, 1556). The society spread rapidly, and at the time of St. Ignatius' death had twelve provinces: Italy, Sicily, Portugal, Aragon, Castile, Andalusia, Upper Germany, Lower Germany, France, India (including Japan), Brazil, and Ethiopia, the last-mentioned province lasting but a short time. It met with opposition at the University of Paris; while in Spain it was severely attacked by Melchior Cano. (2) James Lainez (2 July, 1558-19 January, 1565). Lainez served two years as vicar-general, and was chosen general in the first general congregation, retarded until 1558 (19 June-10 Sept.) owing to the unfortunate war between Paul IV and Philip II. Paul IV gave orders that the Divine Office should be recited in choir, and also that the generalate should only last three years. The pope died on 18 August, 1559, and his orders were not renewed by his successor, Pius IV; indeed he refused Fr. Lainez leave to resign when his first triennium closed. Through Pius' nephew, St. Charles Borromeo, the Society now received many privileges and openings, and progress was rapid. Father Lainez himself was sent to the "Colloquy of Poissy", and to the Council of Trent (1563-4), St. Francis Borgia being left in Rome as his vicar-general. At the death of Lainez the Society numbered 3500 members in 18 provinces and 130 houses. (3) St. Francis Borgia (2 July 1565-1 October, 1572). One of the most delicate tasks of his government was to negotiate with Pope St. Pius V, who desired to reintroduce the singing of Office. This was in fact begun in May, 1569, but only in professed houses, and it was not to interfere with other work. Pius also ordained (Christmas, 1566) that no candidate for any religious order for the priesthood should be ordained until after his profession; and this indirectly caused much trouble to the Society, with its distinct grades of professed and non-professed priests. All therefore had to be professed of three vows, until Gregory XIII (December, 1572) allowed the original practice to be restored. Under his administration the foreign missionary work of the order greatly increased and prospered. New missions were opened by the Society in Florida, Mexico, and Peru. (4) Everard Mercurian Belgian (23 April, 1573-1 August 1580). Fr. Mercurian was born in 1514 in the village of Marcour (Luxembourg), whence his name, which he signed Everard de Marcour. He became the first non-Spanish general of the Society. Pope Gregory XIII, without commanding, had expressed his desire for this change. This, however, caused great dissatisfaction and opposition among a number of the Spanish and Portuguese members, which came to a crisis during the generalate of Father Mercurian's successor, Father Claudius Acquaviva. Father Tolet was entrusted with the task of obtaining the submission of Michael Baius to the decision of the Holy See; he succeeded, but his success later served to draw on the Society the hatred of the Jansenists. Father Mercurian, when general, brought the rules to their final form, compiling the "Summary of the Constitutions" from the manuscripts of St. Ignatius, and drawing up the "Common Rules" of the Society, and the particular rules of each office. He was greatly interested in the foreign missions and established the Marionite and English missions, and sent to the latter Blessed Edmund Campion and Father Robert Persons. Father Everard Mercurian passed thirty-two years in the Society, and died at the age of sixty-six. At that time the Society numbered 5000 members in eighteen provinces. (5) Claudius Acquaviva (Aquaviva) Neapolitan (19 February, 1581-31 January, 1615). (For the disputations on grace, see Congregatio de Auxiliis). After Ignatius, Acquaviva was perhaps the ablest ruler of the Society. As a legislator he reduced to its present form the final parts of the Institute, and the Ratio Studiorum (q.v.). He had also to contend with extraordinary obstacles both from without and within. The Society was banished from France and from Venice; there were grave differences with the King of Spain, with Sixtus V, with the Dominican theologians; and within the Society the rivalry between Spaniard and Italian led to unusual complications and to the calling of two extraordinary general congregations (fifth and sixth). The origin of these troubles is perhaps eventually to be sought in the long wars of religion, which gradually died down after the canonical absolution of Henry IV, 1595 (in which Fathers Georges, Toledo, and Possevinus played important parts). The fifth congregation in 1593 supported Acquaviva steadily against the opposing parties, and the sixth, in 1608, completed the union of opinions. Paul V in 1606 re-confirmed the Institute, which from now onwards may be considered to have won a stable position in the Church at large, until the epoch of the Suppression and the Revolution. Missions were established in Canada, Chile, Paraguay, the Philippine Islands, and China. At Father Acquaviva's death the Society numbered 13,112 members in 32 provinces and 559 houses. (6) Mutius Vitelleschi Roman (15 November, 1615-9 February, 1645). His generalate was one of the most pacific and progressive, especially in France and Spain; but the Thirty Years' War worked havoc in Germany. The canonization of Sts. Ignatius and Francis Xavier (1622) and the first centenary of the Society (1640) were celebrated with great rejoicings. The great mission of Paraguay began, that of Japan was stamped out in blood. England was raised in 1619 to the rank of a province of the order, having been a mission until then. Missions were established in Tibet (1624), Tonkin (1627), and Maranhao (1640). (7) Vincent Caraffa Neapolitan (7 January 1646-8 June 1649). A few days before Father Caraffa's election as general, Pope Innocent X published a brief "Prospero felicique statui", in which he ordered a general congregation of the Society to be held every nine years; it was ordained also that no office in the Society except the position of master of novices should be held for more than three years. The latter regulation was revoked by Innocent's successor, Alexander VII on 1 January, 1658; and the former by Benedict XIV in 1746 by the Bull "Devotam", many dispensations having been granted in the mean time. (8) Francis Piccolomini of Sienna (21 December, 1649-17 June, 1651). Before his election as general he had been professor of philosophy at the Roman college; he died at the age of sixty-nine, having passed fifty-three years in the Society. (9) Aloysius Gottifredi Roman (21 January, 1652-12 March 1652). Father Gottifredi died at the house of the professed Fathers, Rome, within two months after his election, and before the Fathers assembled for the election and congregation had concluded their labour. He had been a professor of theology and rector at the Roman College, and later secretary of the Society under Father Mutius Vitelleschi. (10) Goschwin Nickel German (b. at Jülich in 1582; 17 March, 1652-31 July, 1664). During these years the struggle with Jansenism was growing more and more heated. The great controversy on the Chinese Rites (1645) was continued (see Ricci, Mateo). Owing to his great age, Father Nickel obtained from the eleventh congregation the appointment of John Paul Oliva as vicar-general (on 7 June, 1661), with the approval of Alexander VII. (11) John Paul Oliva Genoese (elected vicar cum jure successionis on 7 June, 1661) 31 July, 1664-26 November 1681. During his generalate, the Society established a mission in Persia, which at first met with great success, four hundred thousand converts being made within twenty-five years; in 1736, however, the mission was destroyed by violent persecution. Father Oliva's generalate occurred during one of the most difficult periods in the history of the Society, as the controversy on Jansenism, the droit de régale, and moral theology were being carried on by the opponents of the Society with the greatest acrimony and violence. Father John Paul Oliva laboured earnestly to keep up the Society's high reputation for learning, and in a circular letter sent to all the houses of study urged the cultivation of the oriental languages. (12) Charles de Noyelle Belgian, 5 July 1682-12 December, 1868. Father de Noyelle was born at Brussels on 28 July, 1615; so great was his reputation for virtue and prudence that at his election he received unanimous vote of the congregation. He had been assistant for the Germanic provinces for more than 20 years; he died at the age of seventy, after fifty years spent in the Society. Just about the time of his election, the dispute between Louis XIV of France and Pope Innocent XI had culminated in the publication of the "Déclaration du clergé de France" (19 March, 1682). This placed the Society in a difficult position in France, as its spirit of devotion to the papacy was not in harmony with the spirit of the "Déclaration". It required all the ingenuity and ability of Pere La Chaise and Father de Noyelle to avert a disaster. Innocent XI was dissatisfied with the position the Society adopted, and threatened to suppress the order, proceeding even so far as to forbid the reception of novices. (13) Thyrsus González Spaniard, 6 July, 1687-27 October, 1705. He interfered in the controversy between Probabilism (q.v.) and Probabiliorism, attacking the former doctrine with energy in a book published at Dilligen in 1691. As Probabilism was on the whole in favour in the Society, this caused discussions which were not quieted until the fourteenth congregation, 1696, when, with the pope's approval, liberty was left to both sides. Father Gonzalez in his earlier days had laboured with great fruit as a missionary, and after his election as general encouraged the work of popular home missions. His treatise "De infallibitate Romani pontificis in definiendis fidei et morum controversiis" which was a vigorous attack on the doctrines laid down in the "Déclaration du clergé de France" was published at Rome in 1689 by order of Pope Innocent XI; however, Innocent's successor, Alexander VIII, caused the work to be withdrawn, as its effects had been to render the relations between France and the Holy See more difficult. Father González laboured earnestly to spread devotion to the saints of the Society; he died at the age of eighty-four, having passed sixty-three years in the order, during nineteen of which he was general. (14) Michelangelo Tamburini Of Modena, 31 January, 1706-28 February, 1730. The long reign of Louis XIV, so favorable to the Jesuits in many respects, saw the beginning of those hostile movements which were to lead to the Suppression. The king's autocratic powers, his Gallicanism, his insistence on the repression of the Jansenists by force, the way he compelled the Society to take his part in the quarrel with Rome about the régale (1684-8), led to a false situation in which the parts might be reversed, when the all-powerful sovereign might turn against them, or by standing neutral leave them the prey of others. This was seen at his death, 1715, when the regent banished the once influential father confessor Le Tellier, while the gallicanizing archbishop of Paris, Cardinal de Noailles, laid them under an interdict (1716-29). Father Tamburini who before his election as general had taught philosophy and theology for twelve years and had been chosen by Cardinal Renauld d'Este as his theologian; he had also been provincial of Venice, secretary-general of the Society, and vicar-general. During the disputes concerning the Chinese Rites (q.v.), the Society was accused of resisting the orders of the Holy See. Father Tamborini protested energetically against this calumny, and when in 1711 the procurators of all the provinces of the Society were assembled in Rome, he had them sign a protest which he dedicated to Pope Clement XI. The destruction of Port Royal and the condemnation of the errors of Quesnel by the Bull "Unigenitus" (1711) testified to the accuracy of the opinions adopted by the Society in these disputes. Father Tamburini procured the canonization of Saints Aloysius Gonzaga and Stanislaus Kostka, and the beautification of St. John Francis Régis. During his generalate the mission of Paraguay reached its highest degree of success; in one year no fewer than 77 missionaries left for it; the missionary labors of St. Francis de Geronimo and Blessed Anthony Baldinucci in Italy, and Venerable Manuel Padial in Spain, enhanced the reputation of the Society. Father Tamburini died at the age of 82, having spent sixty-five years in religion. At the time of his death, the Society contained 37 provinces, 24 houses of professed Fathers, 612 colleges, 59 novitiates, 340 residences, 200 mission stations; in addition, one hundred and fifty-seven seminaries were directed by the Jesuits. (15) Francis Retz Austrian (born at Prague in 1673) 7 March, 1730-19 November 1750. Father Retz was elected general unanimously, his able administration contributed much to the welfare of the Society; he obtained the canonization of St. John Francis Regis. Father Retz's generalate was perhaps the quietest in the history of the order. At the time of his death, the Society contained 39 provinces, 24 houses of professed Fathers, 669 colleges, 61 novitiates, 335 residences, 273 mission stations 176 seminaries, and 22,589 members of whom 11,293 were priests. (16) Ignatius Viscanti Milanese, 4 July, 1751-4 May 1755. It was during this generalate that the accusations of trading were first made against Father Antonine de La Valette, who was recalled from Martinique in 1753 to justify his conduct. Shortly before dying, Fr. Viscanti allowed him to return to his mission, where the failure of his commercial operations, somewhat later, gave an opportunity to the enemies of the Society in France to begin a warfare that ended only with the Suppression (see below). Trouble with Pombal also began at this time. Father Visconti died at the age of seventy-three. (17) Aloysius Centurioni Genoese, 30 November, 1755-2 October 1757. During his brief generalate, the most noteworthy facts were the persecution by Pombal of the Portuguese Jesuits and the troubles caused by Father de La Valette's commercial activities and disasters. Father Centurioni died at Castel Gandolfo, at the age of seventy-two. (18) Lorenzo Ricci Florentine, 21 May, 1758 until the Suppression in 1773. In 1759, the Society contained 41 provinces, 270 mission posts, and 171 seminaries. Father Ricci founded the Bavarian province of the order in 1770. His generalate saw the slow death agony of the Society; within two years the Portuguese, Brazilian and East Indian provinces and missions were destroyed by Pombal; close to two thousand members of the Society were cast destitute on the shores of Italy and imprisoned in fetid dungeons in Portugal. France, Spain, and the two Sicilies followed in the footsteps of Pombal. The Bull, "Apostolicum" of Clement XIII in favor of the Society produced no fruit. Clement XIV at last yielded to the demand for the extinction of the Society. Father Ricci was seized, and cast a prisoner into the Castel San Angelo, were he was treated as a criminal until death ended his sufferings on 24 November, 1775. In 1770, the Society contained 42 provinces, 24 houses of professed Fathers, 669 colleges, 61 novitiates, 335 residences, 273 mission stations, and about 23,000 members. J.H. POLLEN Pre-1773 History of the Jesuits History of the Jesuits Before the 1773 Suppression Italy The history of the Jesuits in Italy was generally very peaceful. The only serious disturbances were those arising from the occasional quarrels of the civil governments with the ecclesiastical powers. St. Ignatius" first followers were immediately in great request to instruct the faithful, and to reform the clergy, monasteries, and convents. Though there was little organized or deep-seated mischief, the amount of lesser evils was immense; the possibility here and there of a catastrophe was evident. While the preachers and missionaries evangelized the country, colleges were established at Padua, Venice, Naples, Bologna, Florence, Parma, and other cities. On 20 April 1555, the University of Ferrara addressed to the Sorbonne a most remarkable testimony in favor of the order. St. Charles Borromeo was, after the popes, perhaps the most generous of all the patrons, and they freely put their best talents at his disposal. (For the difficulties about his seminary and with Fr. Guillo Mazarino, see Sylbain, "Hist. de S. Charles", iii, 53.) Juan de Vega, ambassador of Charles V at Rome, had learnt to know and esteem Ignatius there, and when he was appointed Viceroy of Sicily he brought Jesuits with him. A college was opened at Messina; success was marked, and its rules and methods were afterwards copied in other colleges. After fifty years the Society counted in Italy 86 houses and 2550 members. The chief trouble in Italy occurred in Venice at 1606, when Paul V laid the city under interdict for serious breaches of ecclesiastical immunities. The Jesuits and some other religious retired from the city, and the Senate, inspired by Paolo Sarpi, the disaffected friar, passed a decree of perpetual banishment against them. In effect, though peace was made ere long with the pope, it was fifty years before the Society could return. Italy, during the first two centuries of the Society was still the most cultured country in Europe, and the Italian Jesuits enjoyed a high reputation for learning and letters. The elder Segneri is considered the first of Italian preachers, and there are a number of others of the first class. Maffei, Torellino, Strada, Palavicino, and Bartoli (q.v.) have left historical works which are still highly prized. Between Bellarmine (d. 1621) and Zaccharia (d. 1795) Italian Jesuits of note in theology, controversy, and subsidiary sciences are reckoned by the score. They also claim a large proportion of the saints, martyrs, generals, and missionaries. (See also Belecius; Bolgeni; Boscovich; Possevinus; Scaramelli; Viva.) Italy was divided into five provinces, with the following figures for the year 1749 (shortly before the beginning of the movement for the suppression of the Society); Rome 848; Naples 667; Sicily 775; Venice 707; Milan 625; total 3622 members, about one-half of whom were priests, with 178 houses. Spain Though the majority of Ignatius' companions were Spaniards, he did not gather them together in Spain, and the first Jesuits paid only passing visits there. In 1544, however, Father Aroaz, cousin of St. Ignatius and a very eloquent preacher, came with six companions, and then their success was rapid. On 1 September, 1547, Ignatius established the province of Spain with seven houses and about forty religious; St. Francis Borgia joined in 1548; in 1550, Lainez accompanied the Spanish troops in their African campaign. With rapid success came unexpected opposition. Melchior Cano, O.P., a theologian of European reputation, attacked the young order, which could make no effective reply, nor could anyone get the professor to keep the peace. But, very unpleasant as the trial was, it eventually brought advantage to the order, as it advertised it well in university circles, and moreover drew out defenders of unexpected efficiency, as Juan de la Peña of the Dominicans, and even their general, Fra Francisco Romero. The Jesuits continued to prosper, and Ignatius subdivided (29 September, 1554) the existing province into three, containing twelve houses and 139 religious. Yet there were internal troubles both here and in Portugal under Simon Rodriguez, which gave the founder anxieties. In both countries the first houses had been established before the Constitutions and rules were committed to writing. It was inevitable therefore that the discipline introduced by Aroaz and Rodriguez should have differed somewhat from that which was being introduced by Ignatius at Rome. In Spain, the good offices of Borgia and the visits of Father Nadal did much to effect a gradual unification of the system, though not without difficulty. These troubles, however, affected the higher officials of the order rather than the rank and file, who were animated by the highest motives. The great preacher Ramirez is said to have attracted 500 vocations to religious orders at Salamanca in the year 1564, about 50 of them to the Society. There were 300 Spanish Jesuits at the death of Ignatius in 1556; and 1200 at the close of Borgia's generalate in 1572. Under the non-Spanish generals who followed, there was an unpleasant recrudescence of the nationalistic spirit. Considering the quarrels which daily arose between Spain and other nations, there can be no wonder at such ebullitions. As has been explained under Acquaviva, Philip of Spain lent his aid to the discontented parties, of whom the virtuous José de Acosta was the spokesman, Fathers Hernéndez, Dionysius Vásquez, Henríquez, and Mariana the real leaders. Their ulterior object was to secure a separate comissary-general for Spain. This trouble was not quieted till the fifth congregation, 1593, after which ensued the great debates de auxiliis with the Dominicans, the protagonists on both sides being Spaniards. (See Congregatio de Auxiliis; Grace, Controversies on.) Serious as these troubles were in their own sphere, they must not be allowed to obscure the fact that in the Society, as in all Catholic organizations of that day, Spaniards played the greatest roles. When we enumerate their great men and their great works, they defy all comparison. This comparisons gains further force when we remember that the success of the Jesuits in Flanders and in the parts of Italy then united with the Spanish crown was largely due to Spanish Jesuits; and the same is true of the Jesuits in Portugal, which country with its far-stretching colonies was also under the Spanish crown from 1581 to 1640, though neither the organization of the Portuguese Jesuits nor the civil government of the country itself was amalgamated with those of Spain. But it was in the more abstract sciences that the Spanish genius shone with the greatest lustre; Toledo (d. 1596), Molina (1600), de Valentia (1603), Vásquez (1604), Suárez (1617), Ripalda (1648), de Lugo (1660) (qq.v.)--these form a group of unsurpassed brilliance, and there are quite a number of others almost equally remarkable. In moral theology, Sánchez (1610), Azor (1603), Salas (1612), Castro Palao (1633), Torres (Turrianus, 1635), Escobar y Mendoza (1669). In Scripture, Maldonado (1583), Salmerón (1585), Francisco Ribera (1591), Prado (1595), Pereira (1610), Sancio (1628), Pineda (1637). In secular literature, mention may be made of de Isla (q.v.). and Baltasar Gracián (1584-1658), author of "The Art of Worldly Wisdom" (El oráculo) and "El criticon", which seems to have suggested the idea of "Robinson Crusoe" to Defoe. Following the almost universal custom of the late seventeenth century, the kings of Spain generally had Jesuit confessors; but their attempts at reform were too often rendered ineffective by court intrigues. This was especially the case with the Austrian, Father, later Cardinal, Everard Nidhard (confessor of Maria Anna of Austria) and Pere Daubenton, confessor of Philip V. After the era of the great writers, the chief glory of the Spanish Jesuits is to be found in their large and flourishing foreign missions in Peru, Chile, New Grenada, the Philippines, Paraguay, Quito, which will be noted under "missions", below. There were served by 2171 Jesuits at the time of the Suppression. Spain itself in 1749 was divided into five provinces: Toledo with 659 members, Castile, 718; Aragon, 604; Seville, 662; Sardinia, 300; total 2943 members (1342 priests) in 158 houses. Portugal At the time when Ignatius founded his order Portugal was in her heroic age. Her rulers were full of enterprise, her universities were full of life, her trade routes extended over the then known world. The Jesuits were welcomed with enthusiasm, and made good use of their opportunities. St. Francis Xavier, traversing Portuguese colonies and settlements, proceeded to make his splendid missionary conquests. These were continued by his confreres in such distant lands as Abyssinia, the Congo, South Africa, China, and Japan, by Fathers Nunhes, Silveria, Acosta, Fernandes, and others. At Coimbra, and afterwards at Evora, the Society made the most surprising progress under such professors as Pedro de Fonseca (d. 1599), Luis Molina (d. 1600), Christovão Gil, Sebastão de Abreu, etc., and from here also comes the first comprehensive series of philosophical and theological textbooks for students. (see Conimbricenses). With the advent of Spanish monarchy, 1581, the Portuguese Jesuits suffered no less than the rest of their country. Luis Carvalho joined the Spanish opponents of Father Acquaviva, and when the apostolic collector, Ottavio Accoramboni, launched an interdict against the government of Lisbon, the Jesuits, especially Diego de Arida, became involved in the undignified strife. One the other hand, they played an honorable part in the restoration of Portugal's liberty in 1640, and on its success, the difficulty was to restrain King João IV from giving Father Manuel Fernandes a seat in the Cortes, and employing others in diplomatic missions. Among these Fathers were Antonio Vieira, one of Portugal's most eloquent orators. Up to the Suppression, Portugal and her colonists supported the following missions, of which further notices will be found elsewhere, Goa (originally India), Malabar, Japan, China, Brazil, Maranhao. The Portuguese provinces in 1749 numbered 861 members (381 priests) in 49 houses. (See also Vieira, Antonio; Malagrida, Gabriel.) France The first Jesuits, although almost all Spaniards, were trained and made their first vows in France, and the fortunes of the Society in France have always been of exceptional importance for the body at large. In early years its young men were sent to Paris to be educated there as Ignatius had been. They were hospitably received by Guillaume de Prat, bishop of Claremont, whose hôtel grew into the Collège de Clermont (1550), afterwards known as Luis-le-Grand. Padre Viola was the first rector, but the public classes did not begin until 1564. The Parlement of Paris and the Sorbonne resisted vehemently the letters patent, which Henry II and after him Francis II, and Charles IX had granted with little difficulty. Meanwhile the same Bishop of Claremont had founded a second college at Billom in his own diocese, which was opened 26 July, 1556, before the first general congregation. Colleges at Mauriac and Pamiers soon followed, and between 1565 and 1575, other at Avignon, Chambéry, Toulouse, Rodez, Verdun, Nevers, Bordeaux, Pont-à-Mousson, while Fathers Coudret, Auger, Roger, and Pelletier distinguished themselves by their apostolic labours. The utility of the order was also shown in the Colloquies at Poissy (1561) and at St-Germain-en-Laye by Fathers Lainez and Possevinus, and again by Father Brouet, who, with two companions, gave his life in the service of plague-stricken Paris in 1562, while Father Maldonado lectured with striking effect both at Paris and Bourges. Meantime serious trouble was growing up with the University of Paris due to a number of petty causes, jealousy of the new teachers, rivalry with Spain, Gallican resentment at the enthusiastic devotion of the Jesuits to Rome, and perhaps a spice of Calvinism. A lawsuit for the closing of Claremont College was instituted before the Parlement, and Estienne Pasquier, counsel for the university, delivered a celebrated plaidoyer against the Jesuits. The parlement, though then favorable to the order, was anxious not to irritate the university, and came to an indecisive settlement (5 April, 1565). The Jesuits, despite the royal license, were not to be incorporated in the university, but they might continue their lectures. Unsatisfied with this, the university retaliated by preventing the Jesuit scholars from obtaining degrees and later (1573-6), a feud was maintained against Father Maldonado (q.v.) which was eventually closed by the intervention of Gregory XIII who had also in 1572 raised the college of Pont-a-Mousson to the dignity of a university. But meantime, the more or less incessant wars of religion were devastating the land, and from time to time, several Jesuits, especially Auger and Manare, were acting as army chaplains. They had no connection with the Massacre of St, Bartholomew (1572); but Maldonado was afterward deputed to receive Henry of Navarre (afterward Henry IV) into the Church, and in many places the Fathers were able to shelter refugees in their houses; and by remonstrance and intercession, they saved many lives. Immediately after his coronation (1575), Henry III chose Father Auger for his confessor, and for exactly two hundred years the Jesuit court confessor became an institution in France, and as French fashions were then influential, every Catholic court in time followed the precedent. Considering the difficulty of any sort of control over autocratic sovereigns, the institution of a court confessor was well adapted to the circumstances. The occasional abuses of the office which occurred are chiefly to be attributed to the exorbitant powers invested in the autocrat, which no human guidance could save from periods of decline and degradation.But this was more clearly seen later on. A crisis for French Catholicism was near when, after the death of Francois, Duke of Anjou, 1584, Henri de Navarre, now an apostate, stood heir to the throne which the feeble Henry III could not possibly retain for long. Sides were taken with enthusiasm, and La sainte ligue was formed for the defense of the Church (see League, The; Guise, House of; France). It was hardly to be expected that the Jesuits to a man would have remained cool, when the whole populace was in a ferment of excitement. It was morally impossible to keep the Jesuit friends of the exaltés on both sides from participating in their extreme measures. Auger and Claude Matthieu were respectively in the confidence of the two contending parties, the Court and the League. Father Acquaviva succeeded in withdrawing both from France, though with great difficulty and considerable loss of favor on either side. One or two he could not control for some time, and of these, the most remarkable was Henri Samerie, who had been chaplain to Mary Stuart, and became later army chaplain in Flanders. For a year he passed as diplomatic agent from one prince of the League to another, evading, by their means and the favor of Sixtus V, all Acquaviva's efforts to get him back to regular life. But in the end, discipline prevailed, and Acquaviva's orders to respect the consciences of both sides enabled the Society to keep friends with all. Henry IV made much use of the Jesuits (especially Toledo, Possevinus, and Commolet), although they had favored the League, to obtain canonical absolution and the conclusion of peace; and in time (1604) took Pere Coton (q.v.) as his confessor. This, however, is an anticipation. After the attempt on Henri's life by Jean Chastel (27 December, 1594), the Parlement of Paris took the opportunity of attacking the Society with fury, perhaps to disguise the fact that they had been among the most extreme of the Leaguers, while the Society was among the more moderate. It was pretended that the Society was responsible for Chastel's crime, because he had once been their student: though in truth he was then at the university. The librarian of the Jesuit college, Jean Guignard, was hanged, 7 January, 1595, because an old book against the king was found in the cupboard of his room. Antoine Arnauld, the elder, brought into his plaidoyer before the Parlement every possible calumny against the Society and the Jesuits were ordered to leave Paris in three days and France in a fortnight. The decree was executed in the districts subject to the Parlement of Paris, but not elsewhere. The king, not yet being canonically absolved, did not then interfere. But the pope, and many others, pleaded earnestly for the revocation of the decree against the order. The matter was warmly debated and eventually Henry himself gave the permission for its readmission, on 1 September, 1603. He now made great use of the Society, founded for it the great College of La Feche, encouraged its missions at home, in Normandy and Béarn, and the commencement of the foreign missions in Canada and the Levant. The Society immediately began to increase rapidly, and counted thirty-nine colleges, besides other houses, and 1135 religious before the king fell under Ravaillac's dagger (1610). This was made the occasion for new assaults by the Parlement, who availed themselves of Marianna's book, "De rege", to attack the Society as defenders of regicide. Suarez's "Defensio fidei" was burnt in 1614. The young King, Louis XIII, was too weak to curb the parlementaires, but both he and the people of France favored the Society so effectively that at the time of his death in 1643 their numbers had trebled. They now had five provinces, and that of Paris alone counted over 13,000 scholars in its colleges. The confessors during this reign were changed not unfrequently by the manoeuvers of Richilieu, and included Peres Arnoux de Séguiron, Suffren, Caussin (q.v.), Sirmond, Dinet. Richilieu's policy of supporting the German Protestants against Catholic Austria (which Caussin resisted) proved the occasion for angry polemics. The German Jesuit Jacob Keller was believed (though proof of authorship is altogether wanting) to have written two strong pamphlets, "Mysteria politica", and "Admonitio ad Ludovicum XIII", against France. The books were burned by the hangman, as in 1626 was a work of Father Santarelli, which touched awkwardly on the pope's power to pronounce against princes. The politico-religious history of the Society under Louis XIV centres round Jansenism (see Jansenius and Jansenism) and the lives of the king's confessors, especially Pères Annat (1845-60), Ferrier (1660-74), La Chaise (q.v.) (1674-1709), and Michel Le Tellier (q.v.) (1709-15). On 24 May, 1656, Blaise Pascal (q.v.) published the first of his "Provinciales". The five propositions of Jansenism having been condemned by papal authority, Pascal could no longer defend them openly, and found the most effective method of retaliation was satire, raillery, and countercharge against the Society. He concluded with the usual evasion that Jansenius did not write in the sense attributed to him by the pope. The "Provinciales" were the first noteworthy example in the French language of satire written in studiously polite and moderate terms; and their great literary merit appealed powerfully to the French love of cleverness. Too light to be effectively answered by refutation, they were at the same time sufficiently envenomed to do great and lasting harm; although they have frequently been proved to misrepresent the teachings of the Jesuits by omissions, alterations, interpolations, and false contexts, notably by Dr, Karl Weiss, of Gratz, "P. Antonio de Escobar y Mendoza als Moraltheologe in Pascals Beleuchtung und im Lichte der Wahrheit". The cause of the Jesuits was also compromised by the various quarrels of Louis XIV with Innocent XI, especially concerning the régale, and the Gallican articles of 1682. (See Louis XIV and Innocent XI. The different standpoint of these articles may help to illustrate the differences of view prevalent within the order on this subject.) At first there was a tendency on both sides to spare the French Jesuits. They were not at that time asked to subscribe to the Gallican articles, while Innocent overlooked their adherence to the king, in hopes that their moderation might bring about peace. But it was hardly possible that they should escape all troubles under a domination so pressing. Louis conceived the idea of uniting all the French Jesuits under a vicar, independent of the general in Rome. Before making this known, he recalled all his Jesuit subjects, and all, even the assistant, Pere Fontaine, returned to France. Then he proposed the separation, which Thyrsus González formally refused. The provincials of the five French Jesuit provinces implored the king to desist, which he eventually did. It has been alleged that papal decree forbidding the reception of novices between 1684-6 was issued in punishment of the French Jesuits giving support to Louis (Cretineau-Joly). The matter is alluded to in the Brief of Suppression; but it is still obscure and would seem rather to be connected with the Chinese rites than with the difficulties in France. Except for the interdict on their schools in Paris, 1716-29, by Cardinal de Noailles, the fortunes of the order were very calm and prosperous during the ensuing generation. In 1749, the French Jesuits were divided into five provinces with members as follows: France, 891; Acquitane, 437; Lyons 772; Toulouse 655; Champagne, 594; total 3350 (1763 priests) in 158 houses. Germany The first Jesuit to labour here was Bl. Peter Faber (q.v.), who won to their ranks Bl. Peter Canisius (q.v.), to whose lifelong diligence and eminent holiness the rise and prosperity of the German provinces are especially due. In 1556, there were two provinces, South Germany (Germania Superior, up to and including Mainz) and North Germany (Germania Inferior, including Flanders). The first residence of the Society was at Cologne (1544), the first college at Vienna (1552). The Jesuit colleges were soon so popular that they were demanded on every side, faster than they could be supplied, and the greater groups of these became fresh provinces. Austria branched off in 1563, Bohemia in 1623, Flanders had become two separate provinces by 1612, and Rhineland also two provinces by 1626. At that time the five German-speaking provinces numbered over 100 colleges and academies. But meanwhile all Germany was in turmoil with the Thirty Years War, which had gone so far, generally, in favor of the Catholic powers. In 1629 came the Restitutionsedikt (see Counter-Reformation) by which the emperor redistributed with papal sanction the old church property which had been recovered from the usurpation of the Protestants. The Society received large grants, but was not much benefited thereby. Some bitter controversies ensued with the ancient holders of the properties, who were often Benedictines; and many of the acquisitions were lost again during the next period of the war. The sufferings of the order during the second period were grievous. Even before the war they had been systematically persecuted and driven into exile by the Protestant princes, whenever these had the opportunity. In 1618 they were banished from Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia; and after the advent of Gustavus Adolphus the violence to which they were liable increased. The fanatical proposal of banishing them forever from Germany was made by him in 1631, and again at Frankfurt in 1633; and this counsel of hatred acquired a hold which it still exercises over the German Protestant mind. The initial success of the Catholics of course excited further antipathies, especially as the great generals Tilly, Wallenstein, and Piccolomini had been Jesuit pupils. During the siege of Prague, 1648, Father Plachy successfully trained a corps of students for the defense of the town, and was awarded the mural crown for his services. The province of Upper Rhine alone lost seventy-seven Fathers in field hospitals or during the fighting. After the peace of Westphalia, 1648, the tide of the Counter-Reformation had more or less spent itself. The foundation period had passed and there are few external events to chronicle. The last notable conversion was that of Prince Frederick Augustus of Saxony (1697), afterwards King of Poland. Fathers Vota and Salerno (afterwards a cardinal) were intimately connected with his conversion. Within the walls of their colleges and in the churches throughout the country the work of teaching, writing and preaching continued unabated, while the storms of controversy rose and fell, and the distant missions, especially China and the Spanish missions of South America, claimed scores of the noblest and most high-spirited. To this period belong Philip Jenigan (d. 1704) and Franz Hunolt (d. 1740), perhaps the greatest German Jesuit preachers; Tschupick, Joseph Sneller, and Ignatius Wurz acquired an almost equally great reputation in Austria. In 1749, the German provinces counted as follows: Germania Superior, 1060; Lower Rhine, 772; Upper Rhine, 497; Austria, 1772; Bohemia 1239; total 5340 members (2558 priests) in 307 houses. (See also the index volume under the title "Society of Jesus", and such names as Becan, Byssen, Brouwer, Dreschel, Lohner, etc.) Hungary was included in the province of Austria. The chief patron of the order was Cardinal Pazmany (q.v.). The conversion of Sweden was several times attempted by German Jesuits, but they were not allowed to stay in the country. King John III, however, who had married a Polish princess, was actually converted (1578) through several missions by Fathers Warsiewicz and Possevinus, the latter accompanied by the English Father William Good; but the king had not the courage to persevere. Queen Christina (q.v.) in 1654 was brought into the Church, largely through the ministrations of Fathers Macedo and Casati, having given up her throne for this purpose. The Austrian Fathers maintained a small residence at Moscow from 1684 to 1718, which had been opened by Father Vota. (See Possevinus). Poland Bl. Peter Canisius, who visited Poland in the train of the legate Mantuato in 1558, succeeded in animating King Sigismund to energetic defense of Catholicism, and Bishop Hosius of Ermland founded the College of Braunsburg in 1584, which with that of Vilna (1569) became centres of Catholic activity in northeastern Europe. King Stephen Bathory, an earnest patron of the order, founded a Ruthenian College at Vilna in 1575. From 1588, Father Peter Skarga (d. 1612) made a great impression by his preaching. There were violent attacks against the Society in the revolution of 1607, but after the victory of Sigismund III the Jesuits more than recovered the ground lost; and in 1608 the province could be subdivided into Lithuania and Poland. The animus against the Jesuits however, vented itself in Cracow in 1612, through the scurrilous satire entitled "Monita secreta", (q.v.). King Casimir, who had once been a Jesuit, favored the Society not a little; so too did Sobieski, and his campaign to relieve Vienna from the Turks (1683) was due in part to the exhortations of Father Vota, his confessor. Among the great Polish missionaries are numbered Benedict Herbst (d. 1593) and Bl. Andrew Bobola. In 1756 the Polish provinces were readjusted into four: Greater Poland, Lesser Poland, Lithuania, Massovia, counting in all 2359 religious. The Polish Jesuits, besides their own missions, had others in Stockholm, Russia, the Crimea, Constantinople, and Persia. (See Cracow, University of.) Belgium The first settlement was at Louvaun in 1542, whither the students in Paris retired on the declaration of war between France and Spain. In 1556 Ribadeneira obtained legal authorization for the Society from Philip II, and in 1564 Flanders became a separate province. Its beginning, however, were by no means uniformly prosperous. The Duke of Alva was cold and suspicious, while the wars of the revolting provinces told heavily against it. At the pacification of Ghent (1576), the Jesuits were offered an oath against the rulers of the Netherlands, which they firmly refused, and were driven from their houses. But this at last won for them Philip's favor, and under Alexander Farnese fortune turned completely in their favour. Father Oliver Manare became a leader fitted for the occasion, whom Acquaviva himself greeted as "Pater Provinciae". In a few years, a number of well-established colleges had been founded, and in 1612 the Province had to be subdivided. The Flandro-Belgica counted sixteen colleges and the Gallo-Belgica eighteen. All but two were day schools with no preparatory colleges for small boys. They were worked with comparatively small staffs of five or six, sometimes only three professors, though their scholars might count as many hundreds. Teaching was gratuitous, but a sufficient foundation for the support of the teachers was a necessary preliminary. Though preparatory and elementary education was not yet in fashion, the care taken in teaching catechism was most elaborate. The classes were regular, and at intervals enlivened with music, ceremonies, mystery plays, and processions. These were often attended by the whole magistracy in robes of state, while the bishop himself would attend at the distribution of honours. A special congregation was formed at Antwerp in 1648, to organize ladies and gentlemen, nobles and bourgeois, into Sunday school teachers, and in that year their classes counted in all 3000 children. Similar organizations existed all over the country. The first communion classes formed an extension of the catechisms. In Bruges, Brussels, and Antwerp, between 600 and 1600 attended the communion classes. Jesuit congregations of the Blessed Virgin were first instituted at Rome by a Belgian Jesuit, John Leunis, in 1563. His native country soon took them up with enthusiasm. Each college had normally four: + for scholars (more often two, one for older, one for younger); + for young men on leaving; + for grown-up men (more often several) -- for workingmen, for tradesmen, professional classes, nobles, priests, doctors, etc., etc.; + for small boys. In days before hospitals, workhouses, and elementary education were regularly organized, and supported by the State; before burial-clubs, trade-unions, and the like provided special help for the working man, these sodalities discharged the functions of such institutions, in homely fashion perhaps, but gratuitously, bringing together all ranks for the relief of indigence. Some of these congregations were exceedingly popular, and their registers still show the names of the first artists and savants of the time (Teniers, Van Dyck, Rubens, Lipsius, etc.). Archdukes and kings and even four emperors are found among the sodalists of Louvain. Probably the first permanent corps of Army chaplains was that established by Farnese in 1587. It consisted of ten to twenty-five chaplains, and was styled the "Missio castrensis," and lasted as an institution until 1660. The "Missio navalis" was a kindred institution for the navy. The Flandro-Belgian province numbered 542 in 1749 (232 priests) in 30 houses: Gallo-Belgian, 471 (266 priests) in 25 houses. England Founded in Rome after the English schism had commenced, the Society had great difficulty in finding an entrance into England, though Ignatius and Ribadeneira visited the country in 1531 and 1558, and prayers for its conversion have been recited throughout the order to the present day (now under the common designation of "Northern Nations"). Other early Jesuits exerted themselves on behalf of the English seminary at Douai and of the refugees at Louvain. The effect of Elizabeth's expulsion of Catholics from Oxford, 1562-75, was that many took refuge abroad. Some scores of young men entered the Society, several of these volunteered for foreign missions, and thus it came about that the forerunner of those legions of Englishmen who go into India to carve out careers was the English Jesuit missionary, Thomas Stevens. John Yate (alias Vincent, b. 1550; died after 1603) and John Meade (see Almeida) were pioneers of the mission to Brazil. The most noteworthy of the first recruits were Thomas Darbishire and William Good, followed in time by Blessed Edmund Campion (q.v.) and Robert Persons. The latter was the first to conceive and elaborate the idea of the English mission, which, at Dr. Allen's request, was undertaken in December, 1578. Before this the Society had undertaken care of the English College, Rome (see English College), by the pope's command, 19 March, 1578. But difficulties ensued owing to the miseries inherent in the estate of the religious refugees. Many came all the way to Rome expecting pensions, or scholarships from the rector, who at first became, in spite of himself, the dispenser of Pope Gregory's alms. But the alms soon failed, and several scholars had to be dismissed as unworthy. Hence disappointments and storms of grumbling, the records of which read sadly by the side of the consoling accounts of the martyrdoms of men like Campion, Cottam, Southwell, Walpole, Page, and others, and the labours of a Hetward, Weston, or Gerard. Persons and Crichton too, falling in with the idea, so common abroad, that a counter-revolution in favor of Mary Stuart would not be difficult, made two or three political missions to Rome and Madrid (1582-84) before realizing that their schemes were not feasible (see Persons). After the Armada (q.v.), Persons induced Philip to establish more seminaries, and hence the foundations at Valladolid, St-Omer, and Seville (1589, 1592, 1593), all put in charge of the English Jesuits. On the other hand they suffered a setback in the so-called Appellant Controversy (1598-1602) which French diplomacy in Rome eventually made into an opportunity for operating against Spain. (See Blackwell; Garnet.) The assistance of France, and the influence of the French Counter-Reformation were now on the whole highly beneficial. But many who took refuge at Paris became accustomed to a Gallican atmosphere, and hence perhaps some of the regalist views about the Oath of Allegiance, and some of the excitement in the debate over the jurisdiction of the Bishops of Calcedon, of which more below. The feelings of tension continued until the missions of Pizzani, Conn, and Rosetti, 1635-41. Though the first of these was somewhat hostile, he was recalled in 1637, and his successors brought about a peace, too soon to be interrupted by the Civil War, 1641-60. Before 1606, the English Jesuits had founded houses for others, but neither they nor any other English order had erected houses for themselves. But during the so-called "Foundation Movement", due to many causes but especially perhaps to the stimulation of the Counter-Reformation (q.v.) in France, a full equipment of institutions was established in Flanders. The novitiate began at Louvain in 1606, was moved to Liège in 1614, and in 1622 to Watten. The house at Liège was continued as the scholasticate, and the house of third probation was at Ghent 1620. The "mission" was made in 1619 a vice-province, and on 21 January, 1623, a province, with Fr. Richard Blout as first provincial; and in 1634 it was able to undertake the foreign mission of Maryland (see below) in the old Society. The English Jesuits at this period also reached their greatest numbers. In 1621, they were 211, in 1636, 374. In the latter year, their total revenue amount to 45,086 scudi (about 5760 English pounds in 1913). After the civil War both members and revenue fell off very considerably. In 1649 there were only 264 members, and 23,055 scudi revenue (about 5760 pounds); in 1645, the revenue was only 17,405 scudi (about 4350 pounds). Since Elizabeth's time the martyrs had been few--one only, the Ven. Edmund Arrowsmith (q.v.) in the reign of Charles I. On 26 October, 1623, had occurred "The Doleful Even-song". A congregation had gathered for vespers in the garret of the French embassy in Blackfriars, when the floor gave way. Fathers Drury and Rediate with 61 (perhaps 100) of the congregation were killed. On 14 March, 1628, seven Jesuits were seized at St. John's Clerkenwell, with a large number of papers. These troubles, however, were light, compared with the sufferings during the Commonwealth, when the list of martyrs and confessors went up to ten. As the Jesuits depended so much on the country families, they were sure to suffer severely by the war, and the college at St-Omar was nearly beggared. The old trouble about the Oath of Allegiance was revived by the Oath of Abjuration, and the "three questions" proposed by Fairfax, 1 August 1647 (see White, Thomas). The representatives of the secular and regular clergy, amongst them Father Henry More, were called upon at short notice to subscribe to them. They did so, More thinking he might, "considering the reasons of the preamble", which qualified the words of the oath considerably. But the provincial, Fr. Silesdon, recall him from England, and he was kept out of office for a year; a punishment which, even if drastic for his offence, cannot be regretted, as it providentially led to his writing the history of the English Jesuits down to the year 1635 ("Hist, missionis anglicanae Soc. Jesu, ab anno salutis MDLXXX", St-Omer, 1660). With the Restoration, 1660, came a period of greater calm, followed by the worst tempest of all, Oates's plot (q.v.), when the Jesuits lost eight on the scaffold and thirteen in prison in five years, 1678-83. Then the period of greatest prosperity under King James II (1685-8). He gave then a college, and a public chapel in Somerset House, made Father Petri his almoner, and on 11 November, 1687, a member of his Privy Council. He also chose Father Warner as his confessor, and encouraged the preaching and controversies which were carried on with no little fruit. But this spell of prosperity lasted only a few months; with the Revolution of 1688, the Fathers regained their patrimony of persecution. The last Jesuits to die in prison were Fathers Poulton and Aylworth (1690-1692). William III's repressive legislation did not have the intended effect of exterminating the Catholics, but it did reduce them to a proscribed and ostracized body. Thenceforward the annals of the English Jesuits show little that is new or striking, though their number and works of charity were well-maintained. Most of the Fathers in England were chaplains to gentlemen's families, of which posts they held nearly a hundred during the eighteenth century. The church law under which the English Jesuits worked was to some extent special. At first indeed all was undefined, seculars and regulars living in true happy-family style. As, however, organization developed, friction between parts could not always be avoided, and legislation became necessary. By the institution of the archpriest (7 March, 1598), and by the subsequent modifications of the institution (6 April, 1599; 17 August, 16701; and 5 October, 1602), various occasions for friction were removed, and principles for stable government were introduced. As soon as Queen Henrietta Maria seemed able to protect a bishop in England, bishops of Chalcedon in partibus infidelium were sent, in 1623 and 1625. The second of these, Dr. Richard Smith, endeavored, without having the necessary faculty from Rome, to introduce the episcopal approbation of confessors. This lead to the brief "Britannica", 9 May, 1631 which left the faculties of regular missionaries in their previous immediate dependence on the Holy See. But after the institution of vicars Apostolic in 1685, by a decree of 9 October, 1695, regulars were obliged to obtain approbation from the bishop. There were of course many other matters that needed settlement, but the difficulties of the position in England and the distance from Rome made legislation slow and difficult. In 1745 and 1748 decrees were obtained, against which appeals were lodged; and it was not till 31 May, 1753, that the "Regulae missionis" were laid down by Benedict XIV in the Constitution "Apostolicum ministerium", which regulated ecclesiastical administration until the issuance of the Constitution "Romanos Pontifices" in 1881. In the year of the suppression, 1773, the English Jesuits numbered 274. (See Coffin, Edward; Creswell; English Confessors and Martyrs; More, Henry; Penal Laws; Persons, Robert; Petre, Sir Edward; Plowden; Sabran, Louis de; Southwell; Spencer, John; Stephens, Thomas; Redford.) Ireland One of the first commissions which the popes entrusted to the Society was that of acting as envoys to Ireland. Father Salmeron and Brouet managed to reach Ulster during the Lent of 1542; but the immense difficulties of the situation after Henry VIII's successes of 1541 made it impossible for them to live there in safety, much less to discharge the functions or to commence the reforms which the pope had entrusted to them. Under Queen Mary, the Jesuits would have returned, had there been men ready. There were indeed already a few Irish novices, and of these David Woulfe returned to Ireland on 20 January, 1561, with ample Apostolic faculties. He procured candidates for the sees emptied by Elizabeth, kept open a grammar school for some years, and sent several novices to the order; but he was finally imprisoned and had to withdraw to the continent. A little later the "Irish mission" was regularly organized under Irish superiors, beginning with Fr. Richard Fleming (d. 1590), professor at Clermont College, and then Chancellor of the University of Pont-à-Mousson.In 1609, the mission numbered seventy-two, forty of whom were priests, and eighteen were at work in Ireland. By 1617 this latter number had increased to thirty eight; the rest were for the most part in training among their French and Spanish confreres. The foundation of the colleges abroad, at Salamanca, Santiago, Seville, and Lisbon, for the education of the clergy was chiefly due to Father Thomas White (d. 1622). They were consolidated and long managed by Fr, James Arthur of Kilkenny, afterwards missionary in Ulster and chaplain to Hugh O'Neill. The Irish College at Poitiers was also under Irish Jesuit direction, as was that of Rome for some time (see Irish College, in Rome). The greatest extension in Ireland was naturally during the dominance of the Confederation (1542-54) with which Father Matthew O'Hartigan was in great favour. Jesuit colleges, schools, and residences then amounted to thirteen, with a novitiate at Kilkenny. During the Protestant domination, the number of Jesuits fell again to eighteen, but in 1685, under James II there were twenty-eight with seven residences. After the Revolution, their number fell again to six, and then rose to seventeen in 1717, and to twenty-eight in 1755. The Fathers sprang mostly from the old Anglo-Norman families, but almost all the missionaries spoke Irish, and missionary labour was the chief occupation of the Irish Jesuits. Fr. Robert Rochford set up a school at Youdal as early as 1575; university education was given in Dublin in the reign of Charles I, until the buildings were seized and handed over to Trinity College; and Father John Austin kept a flourishing school in Dublin for twenty-two years before the Suppression. Some account of the work of the Jesuits in Ireland will be found in the articles on Father Christopher Holywood and Henry Fitzsimon; but it was abroad, from the nature of the case, that Irish genius of that day found it widest recognition. Stephen White, Luke Wadding, cousin of his famous Franciscan namesake, at Madrid; Andrew and Peter Wadding at Dilligen and Gratz respectively; J, B, Duiggin and John Lombard at Ypres and Antwerp; Thomas Comerford at Compostella; Paul Sherlock at Salamanca; Richard Lynch (1611-76) at Valladolid and Salamanca; James Kelly at Poitiers and Paris; Peter Plunket at Leghorn. Among the distinguished writers were William Bathe, whose "Janua linguarum" (Salamanca, 1611) was the basis of the work of Commenius. Bertrand Routh (b. at Kilkenny, 1695) was a writer in the "Mémoires de Trévoux" (1734-43), and assisted Montesquieu on his death-bed. In the field of foreign mission, O'Fihily was one of the first apostles of Paraguay, and Thomas Lynch was provincial of Brazil at the time of the Suppression. At this time also, Roger Magloire was working in Martinique, and Philip O'Reilly in Guiana. But it was the mission-field in Ireland itself of which the Irish Jesuits thought most, to which all else, in one way or other lead up. Their labours were principally spent in the walled cities of the old English Pale. Here they kept the faith vigorous, in spite of persecutions, which, if sometimes intermitted, were nevertheless long and severe. The first Irish Jesuit martyr was Edmund O'Donnell who suffered at Cork in 1575. Others on that list of honour are: Dominic Collins, a lay brother, Youghal, 1602; William Boynton, Cahel, 1647; Fathers Netterville and Bathe, at the fall of Drogheda, 1649. Father David Gallway worked among the scattered and persecuted Gaels of the Scottish Isles and Highlands, until his death in 1643. (See also Fitsimon; Malone; O'Donnell; Talbot, Peter; Irish Confessors and Martyrs.) Scotland Father Nicholas de Gouda was sent to visit Mary Queen of Scots in 1562 to invite her to send bishops to the Council of Trent. The power of the Protestants made it impossible to achieve this object, but de Gouda conferred with the Queen and brought back with him six young Scots, who were to prove the founders of the mission. Of these Edmund Hay soon rose to prominence and was rector of Clermont College, Paris. In 1584, Crichton returned with Father James Gordon, uncle of the Earl of Huntly, to Scotland; the former was captured, but the latter was extraordinarily successful, and the Scottish mission proper may be said to have begun with him, and Father Edmund Hay and John Drury, who came in 1585. The Earl of Huntly became the Catholic leader, and the fortunes of his party passed through many a strange turn. But the Catholic victory of Glenlivet, in 1594, aroused the temper of the Kirk to such a pitch that James, though averse to severity, was forced to advance against the Catholic lords and eventually Huntly was constrained to leave the country, and then, returning he submitted to the Kirk in 1597. This put a term to the spread of Catholicism; Father James Gordon had to leave in 1595, but Father Abercrombie succeeded in reconciling Anne of Denmark, who, however, did not prove a very courageous convert. Meantime the Jesuits had been given the management of the Scots College founded by Mary Stuart in Paris, which was successively removed to Pont-a-Mousson and to Douai. In 1600 another college was founded at Rome and put under them, and there was also a small one at Madrid. After reaching the English throne, James was bent on introducing episcopacy into Scotland, and to reconcile the Presbyterians to this he allowed them to persecute the Catholics to their hearts' content. By their barbarous "excommunication", the suffering they inflicted was incredible. The soul of the resistance to this cruelty was Father James Anderson, who, however, becoming the object of special searches, had to be withdrawn in 1611. In 1614, Fathers John Ogilvie (q.v.) and James Moffat were sent in, the former suffering martyrdom at Glasgow, 10 March 1615. In 1620, Father Patrick Anderson (q.v.) was tried, but eventually banished. After this, a short period of peace, 1625-27, ensued, followed by another persecution, 1629-30, and another period of peace before the rising of the Covenanters, and the Civil Wars, 1638-45. There were about six Fathers in the mission at the time, some chaplains with the Catholic gentry, some living the then wild life of the Highlanders, especially during Montrose's campaigns. But after Philiphaugh (1645), the fortunes of the royalists and the Catholics underwent a sad change. Among those who fell into the hands of the enemy was Father Andrew Leslie, who has left a lively account of his prolonged sufferings in various prisons. After the Restoration (1660) there was a new period of peace in which the Jesuit missionaries reaped a considerable harvest, but during the disturbances caused by the Covenanters (q.v.) the persecution of Catholics was renewed. James II favored them as far as he could, appointing Fathers James Forbes and Thomas Patterson chaplains at Holyrood, where a school was also opened. After the Revolution, the Fathers were scattered, but returned, though with diminishing numbers. MISSIONS No sphere of religious activity is held in greater esteem among the Jesuits than that of the foreign missions; and from the beginning, men of the highest gifts, like St. Francis Xavier, have been devoted to this work. Hence perhaps it is that a better idea may be formed of the Jesuits missions by reading the lives of its great missionaries, which will be found under their respective names (see the Index), than from the following notice, in which attention has to be confined to general topics. India When the Society began, the great colonizing powers were Spain and Portugal. The career of St. Francis Xavier, so far as its geographical direction and limits were concerned, was largely determined by the Portuguese settlements in the East, and by the trade routes followed by the Portuguese merchants. Arriving at Goa in 1542, he evangelized first the western coast and Ceylon; in 1545 he was in Malacca; in 1549 in Japan. At the same time he pushed forward his few assistants and catechists into other centers, and in 1552 set out for China, but died at the year's end on an island off the coast. Xavier's work was carried on, with Gao as headquarters, and Father Barzaeus as successor. Father Antonio Criminali, the first martyr of the Society had suffered in 1549 and Father Mendez followed in 1552. In 1559, Blessed Rudolph Acquiviva visited the court of Akbar the Great, but without permanent effect. The great impulse of conversions came after Ven. Robert de Nobili (q.v.) declared himself a Brahmin Sannjasi and lived the life of the Brahmins (1606). At Tanjore and elsewhere he now made immense numbers of converts, who were allowed to keep the distinctions of their caste, with many religious customs; which, however, were eventually (after much controversy) condemned by Benedict XIV in 1744. This condemnation produced a depressing effect on the mission, though at the very time Fathers Lopez and Acosta with singular heroism devoted themselves for life to the service of the Pariahs. The Suppression of the Society, which followed soon after, completed the desolation of a once prolific missionary field. (See Malabar Rites.) From Gao too were organized missions to the east coast of Africa. The Abyssinian mission, under Father Nunhes, Oviedo, and Paes lasted, with various fortunes, over a century 1555-1690 (See Abyssinia, I, 76). The mission on the Zambesi under Father Silviera, Acosta, and Fernandez was but short lived; so too was the work of Father Govea in Angola. In the seventeenth century, the missionaries penetrated into Tibet, Fathers Desideri and Freyre reaching Lhasa. Others pushed out in the Persian mission, from Ormus as far as Ispahan. About 1700 the Persian missions counted 400,000 Catholics. The southern and eastern coasts of India, with Ceylon, were comprised after 1610 in the separate province of Malabar, with an independent French mission at Pondicherry. Malabar numbered forty-seven missionaries (Portuguese) before the Suppression, while the French missions counted 22. (See Hanxleden). Japan The Japanese mission (see Japan, VIII, 306) gradually developed into a province, but the seminary and seat of government remained at Macao. By 1582, the number of Christians was estimated at 200,000, with 250 churches, and 59 missionaries, of whom 23 were priests, and 26 Japanese had been admitted to the Society. But 1587 saw the beginnings of persecution, and about the same period began the rivalries of nations and of competing orders. The Portuguese crown had been assumed by Spain, and Spanish merchants introduced Spanish Dominicans and Franciscans. Gregory XIII at first forbade this (28 January, 1585) but Clement VIII and Paul V (12 December, 1600; 11 June 1608) relaxed and repealed the prohibition, and the persecution of Taico-sama quenched in blood whatever discontent might have arisen in consequence. The first great slaughter of 26 missionaries at Nagasaki took place on 5 Feb., 1597. Then came fifteen years of comparative peace, and gradually the number of Christians rose to about 1,800,000 and the Jesuit missionaries to 140 (63 priests). In 1612, the persecution broke out again, increasing in severity until 1622, when over 120 martyrs suffered. The "great martyrdom" took place on 20 September, when Blessed Charles Spinola (q.v.) suffered with representatives of the Dominicans and the Franciscans. For the twenty ensuing years, the massacre continued without mercy, all Jesuits who landed being at once executed. In 1644 Father Gaspar de Amaral was drowned in attempting to land, and his death brought to a close the century of missionary effort which the Jesuits had made to bring the faith to Japan. The name of the Japanese province was retained, and it counted 57 subjects in 1660; but the mission was really confined to Tonkin and Cochin-China, whence stations were established in Annam, Siam, etc. (see Indo-China, VII, 774-5; Martyrs, Japanese). China A detailed account of this mission from 1552-1773 will be found under China (III, 672-4) and Martyrs in China, and in lives of the missionaries Bouvet, Brancati, Carneiro, Cibot, Fridelli, Gaubil, Gerbillon, Herdtrich, Hinderer, Mailla, Martini, Matteo Ricci, Schall von Bell, and Verbiest (qq.v.). From 1581, when the mission was organized, it consisted of Portuguese Fathers. They established four colleges, one seminary and some forty stations under a vice-provincial who resided frequently at Pekin; at the Suppression there were 54 Fathers. From 1687 there was a special mission of the French Jesuits to Pekin, under their own superior; at the Suppression they numbered 23. Central and South America The missions of Central and South America were divided between Portugal and Spain (see America, I, 414). In 1549, Father Numbrega and five companions, Portuguese, went to Brazil. Progress was slow at first, but when the languages had been learnt, and the confidence of the natives acquired, progress became rapid. Blessed Ignacio de Azevedo and his thirty-one companions were martyred on their way thither in 1570. The missions, however, prospered steadily under such leaders as Jose Anchieta and John Almeida (qq.v.) (Meade). In 1630, there were 70,000 converts. Before the Suppression, the whole country had been divided into missions, served by 445 Jesuits in Brazil, and 146 in the vice-province of Maranhão. Paraguay Of the Spanish missions, the most noteworthy is Paraguay (see Guarani Indians; Abipones; Argentine Republic; Reductions of Paraguay). The province contained 584 members (of whom 385 were priests) before the Suppression, with 113,716 Indians under their charge. Mexico Even larger than Paraguay was the missionary province of Mexico, which included California, with 572 Jesuits and 122,000 Indians. (See also California Missions; Mexico, pp. 258, 266, etc.; Añazco; Clavigero; Díaz; Ducrue; etc.) The conflict as to jurisdiction (1647) with Juan de la Palafox y Mendoza (q.v.), Bishop of La Puebla, led to an appeal to Rome which was decided by Innocent X in 1648, but afterward became a cause célèbre. The other Spanish missions, New Granada (Colombia), Chile, Peru, Quito (Ecuador), were administered by 193, 242, 526, and 209 Jesuits respectively (see Alegre; Araucanians; Arawaks; Barrasa; Moxos Indians). United States Father Andrew White (q.v.) and four other Jesuits from the English missions arrived in territory now comprised in the state of Maryland, 25 March, 1634, with the expedition of Cecil Calvert (q.v.). For ten years they ministered to the Catholics, of the colony, converted many of its Protestant pioneers, and conducted missions with the Indians along Chesapeake Bay and the Potomac River, the Patuxents, Anacostans, and Piscaways, which last were especially friendly. In 1644 the colony was invaded by the Puritans from the neighboring settlement of Virginia, and Father White was sent in chains to England, tried for being a Catholic, and on his release took refuge in Belgium. Although the Catholic colonists soon regained control, they were constantly menaced by their Protestant neighbours and by malcontents in the colony itself, who finally in 1692 succeeded in seizing the government, and in enacting a penal law against the Catholics, particularly against their Jesuit priests, which became more and more intolerable until the colony became the state of Maryland in 1776. During the 140 years between their arrival in Maryland and the Suppression of the Society, the missionaries, averaging four in number the first forty years, and then gradually increasing to twelve and then about twenty, continued their work among the Indians and the Settlers despite every vexation and disability, though prevented from increasing in number and extending their labours during the dispute with Cecil Calvert over retaining the tract of land, Mattapany, given then by the Indians, relief from taxation on lands devoted to religious or charitable purposes, and the usual ecclesiastical immunity for themselves and their households. The controversy ended in the cession of the Mattapany tract, the missionaries retaining the land they had acquired by the condition of plantation. Prior to the Suppression, they had established missions in Maryland, at St. Thomas, White Marsh, St. Inigoes, Leonardtown still (1912) under the care of the Jesuits, and also at Deer Creek, Frederick, and St. Joseph's Bohemia Manor besides the many less permanent stations among the Indians in Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Conewego, Lancaster, Gosenhoppen, and the excursion stations as far as New York, where two of their number, Fathers Harvey and Harrison assisted for a time by Father Gage had, under Governor Dongan ministered as chaplains in the forts and among the white settlers, and attempted unsuccessfully to establish a school between 1683-89, when they were forced to retire by an anti-Catholic administration. The Suppression of the Society altered but little the status of the Jesuits in Maryland. As they were the only priests in the mission, they still remained at their posts, the nine English members, until death, all continuing to labor under Father John Lewis who after the Suppression had received the powers of vicar-general from Bishop Calloner of the London District. Only two of them survived until the restoration of the Society--Robert Molyneux and John Bolton. Many of those who were abroad, labouring in England or studying in Belgium, returned to work in the mission. As a corporate body, they still retained the properties from which they derived support for their religious ministrations. As their numbers decreased, some of the missions were abandoned, or served for a time by other priests, but maintained by the revenues of the Jesuits properties even after the Restoration of the Society. Though these properties were regarded as reverting to it through its former members organized as the Corporation of Roman Catholic clergymen, a yearly allowance from the revenues made over to Archbishop Carroll became during Bishop Maréchal's administration (1817-34) the basis of a claim for such a payment in perpetuity and the dispute thus occasioned was not settled until 1838 under Archbishop Eccleston. French Missions The French missions had as bases the French colonies in Canada, the Antilles, Guiana, and India; while the French influence in the Mediterranean led to missions of the Levant, in Syria among the Maronites (q.v.), etc. (See also Guiana; Haiti; Martinique; China, III, 673.) The Canadian mission is described under Canada, and Missions, Catholic Indian, of Canada. (See also the accounts of the missions given in articles on Indian tribes like the Abenakis, Cree, Huron, Iroquois, Ottawas; and the biographies of the missionaries Bailloquet, Brébeuf, Casot, Chabanel, Chastellain, Chaumonot, Cholonec, Crépieul, Dablon, Cruillettes, Garnier, Goupil, Jouges, Lafitau, Lagrene, Jacques-P. Lallemant, Lamberville, Lauzon, Le Moyne, Râle, etc.) In 1611, Fathers Biard and Massé arrived as missionaries at Port Royal, Acadia. Taken prisoners by the English from Virginia, they were sent back to France in 1614. In 1625, Fathers Massé, Brébeuf, and Charles Lalemant came to work in and about Quebec, until 1629, when they were forced to return to France after the English captured Quebec. Back again in 1632, they began the most heroic missionary period in the annals of America. They opened a college in Quebec in 1635 with a staff of most accomplished professors from France. For forty years, men quite as accomplished, labouring under incredible hardships, opened missions among the Indians on the coast, along the St. Lawrence and the Saguenay, and Hudson Bay; among the Iroquois, Neutral Nation, Petuns, Hurons, Ottawas, and later among the Miamis, Illinois, and the tribes east of the Mississippi as far south as the Gulf of Mexico. When Canada became a British possession in 1763, these missions could no longer be sustained, though many of them, especially those that formed part of parochial settlements had gradually been taken over by secular priests. The college at Quebec was closed in 1768. At the time of the Suppression. there were but twenty-one Jesuits in Canada, the last of whom, Father John J. Casot, died in 1800. The mission has become famous for its martyrs, eight of whom, Brebeuf, Gabriel Lalemant, Daniel, Garnier, Chabanel, Jogues and his lay companions Goupil and Lalande were declared venerable on 27 February, 1912. It has also become noted for its literary remains, especially for the works of the missionaries in the Indian tongues, for their explorations, especially that of Marquette, and for its "Relations." Jesuit Relations The collections known as "Jesuit Relations" consist of letters written from members of the Society in the mission field to their superiors and brethren in Europe, and contain accounts of the development of the missions, and the obstacles which they encountered in their work. In March, 1549, when St. Francis Xavier confided the mission of Ormus to Father Gaspar Barzaeus, he included among his instructions the commission to write from time to time to the college at Goa, giving an account of what was being done in Ormus. His letter to Joam Beira (Malacca, 20 June, 1540), recommends similar accounts being sent to St. Ignatius at Rome and the Father Simon Rodriguez at Lisbon, and is very explicit concerning both the content and the tone of these accounts. The instructions were the guide for the future "Relations sent from all the foreign missions of the order. The "Relations" were of three kinds: Intimate and personal accounts sent to the father-general, to a relative, to a friend, or a superior, which were not meant for publication at the time, if ever. There were also annual letters intended only for members of the order, manuscript copies of which were sent from house to house. Extracts and analyses of these letters were compiled in a volume entitled: "Litterae annuae Societatis Jesu ad patres et fratres Ejusdem Societatis". The rule forbade the communication of these letters to persons not members of the order, as is indicated by the title. The publication of the annual letters began in 1581, was interrupted from 1614 to 1649, and came to an end in 1654, though the provinces and missions continued to send such letters to the father-general. The third class of letters, or "Relations" properly so-called, were written for the public and intended for printing. Of this class were the famous "Relations de la Novelle-France" begun in 1616 by Father Biard. The series for 1626 was written by Father Charles Lalement. Forty-one volumes constitute the series of 1632-72, thirty-nine of which bear the title "Relations" and two (1645-55 and 1658-59) "Letteres de la Novelle-France". The cessation of these publications was the indirect outcome of the controversies concerning the Chinese Rites, as Clement X forbade (16 April, 1673) missionaries to publish books or writings concerning the missions without the written consent of Propaganda. History: A. General.--Mon. historica Soc. Jesu, ed. Rodeles (Madrid, 1894, in progress); Orlandini (continued in turn by Sacchini, Jouvancy, and Cordara), Hist. Soc. Jesu, 1540-1632 (8 vols. fol., Rome and Antwerp, 1615-1750), and Supplement (Rome, 1859); Bartoli, Dell' istoria della comp. de Gesu (6 vols. fol., Rome, 1663-73); Cretineau-Holy, Hist.de la comp. de Jesus (3rd ed., 3 vols., Paris 1859); B. N. The Jesuits: their Foundation and History (London, 1879); [Wernz], Abriss der Gesch. der Gesellschaft Jesu (Munster, 1876); Carrez Atlas geographicus Soc. Jesu (Paris, 1900); Heimbucher, Die Orden und Kongregationen der katholkischen Kirche, III (Paderborn, 1908), 2-258, contains an excellent bibliography; [Quesnel] Hist. des religieux de la comp. de Jesus (Utrecht, 174). Non-Catholic:--Steitz-Zockler in Realencycl. fur prot. Theol., s. v. Jesuitenorden; Hassenmuller, Hist.jesuitici ordinis (Frankfurt, 1593); Hospinianus, Hist. jesuitica (Zurich, 1619). B. Particular Countries.--Italy--Tacchi-Venturi Storia della comp di G. in Italia (Rome, 1910 in progress); Schinosi and Santagata Istoria della comp. di G. appartenente al Regno di Napoli (Naples, 1706-57); Alberti, La Sicilia (Palermo, 1702); Aquilera Provinciae Siculae Soc Jesu res gestae (Palermo, 1737-40); Cappelletti, I gesuiti e la republica di Venizia (Venice. 1873); Favaro, Lo studio di Padora e la comp de G. (Venice, 1877). Spain.--Astrain, Hist. de la comp. de J. in asistencia di Espana (Madrid, 1902, 3 vols., in progress); Alcazar, Chronohistoria de la comp de J. en la provincia de la Toledo (Madrid 1710); Prat, Hist du P. Ribedeneyra (Paris 1862). Portugal--Tellez, Chronica de la comp. de J. na provincia de Portugal (Coimbra, 1645-7); Franco, Synop. annal. Soc. Jesu in Lusitania ab anno 1 40 ad 172 (Augsburg, 1726); Teixeira, Docum. para a hist. dos Jesuitas em Portugal (Coimbra, 1899). France.--Fouqueray, Hist de la comp de J. en France (Paris. 1910); Carayon, Docum. ined. concernant la comp. de J. (23 vols., Paris, 1863-86); Idem, Les parlements et les jesuites (Paris, 1867); Prat, mem pour servir a l'hist. du P. Brouet (Puy 1885); Idem, Recherches hist sur la comp. de J. en France du temps du P. Coton, 1564-1627 (Lyons, 1876); Idem, Maldonat et l'universite de Paris (Paris, 1856); Donarche, L'univ de paris et les jesuites (Paris, 1888); Piaget, L'etablissement des jesuites en France 1540-1660 (Leyden, 1893); Chossat, les jesuites et leurs oeuvres a Avignon (Avignon, 1896). Germany, etc,--Agricola (continued by Flotto, Kropf), Hist. prov. Soc. Jesu Germaniae superioris (1540-1641) (5 vols, Augsburg and Munich, 1727-54); Hansen, Rhein. Akten zur Gesch. des Jesuitenordens 1542-82 (1896); Jansen, History of the German People, tr. Christie (London 1905-10); Duhr, Gesch. der Jesuiten in den Landern deutscher Zunge (Freiburg, 1907); Kroess, Gesch der bohmischen Prov. der G. J. (Vienna, 1910); Menderer, Annal. Ingolstadiensis academ. (Ingolstadt, 1782); Reiffenberg, Hist. Soc. Jesu ad Rhenum inferiorum (Cologne, 1764); Argento, De rebus Soc.jesu in regba Poloniae (Cracow, 1620); Pollard, The Jesuits in Poland, (Oxford, 1882); Zalenski, Hist. of the Soc. of Jesus in Poland (in Polish, 1896-1906); Idem, The Jesuits in White Russia (in Polish, 1874; Fr. tr., Paris, 1886); Pierling, Antonii Possevini moscovitica (1883); Rostwoski, Hist. Soc. Jesu prov. Lithuanicarum provincialum (Wilna, 1765); Scmidl, Hist. Soc. Jesu prov. Bohemiae, 1555-1653 (Prague, 1747-59); Socher, Hist. prov. Austriae Soc. Jesu, 1540-1590 (Vienna, 1740); Steinhuber, Gesch. des Coll. Germanicum-Hungaricum (Freiburg, 1895). Belgium.--Manare, De rebus Soc. Jesu commentarius, ed. Delplace (Florence, 1886); Waldack, Hist. prov. Flandro-beligicae Soc. Jesu anni 1638 (Ghent, 1837). England, Ireland, Scotland. Foley, Records of the English Prov. of the Soc. of Jesus--includes Irish and Scottish Jesuits (London, 1877); Spillmann, Die englischen Martyrer unter Elizabeth bis 1583 (Freiburg, 1888), Forbes-Leith, Narr. of Scottish Catholics (Edinburgh, 1885). Idem, Mem. of Soc. Cath. (London, 1909); Hogan, Ibernia Ignatiana (Dublin, 1880); Idem, Distinguished Irishmen of the XVI century (London, 1894) Meyer, England und die kath. Kirke unter Elizabeth (Rome, 1910); More, Hist. prov. Anglicanae (St-Omer, 1660); Persons, Memoirs, ed. Pollen in Cath. Record Society, II (London, 1896, 1897), iii; Pollen, Politics of the Eng. Cath. under Elisabeth in The Month (London, 1902-3; Taunton, The Jesuits in England (London, 1901). Missions: Letters from the missions were instituted by St. Ignatius. At first they were circulated in MS. and contained home as well as foreign news; e.g. Litterae quadrimestres (5 vols.) lately printed in the Monumenta series, mentioned above. Later on, Litteræ annuae, in yearly or triennial volumes (1581 to 1614) at Rome, Florence, etc., index with last vol. Second series (1650-54) at Dilligen and Prague. The annual letters continued, and still continue in MS., but very irregularly. The tendency was to leave home letters in MS. for the future historian, and to publish the more interesting reports from abroad. Hence many early issues of Avvisi and Litteræ, etc., from India, China, Japan, and later on the celebrated Relations of the French Canadian missions (Paris, 1634-). From these ever-growing printed and manuscript sources were drawn up the collections--Lettres edifiantes et curieuses écrites par quelques missionaries del la comp. de Jesu (Paris, 1702; frequently reprinted with different matter in 4 to 34 volumes. The original title was Lettres de quelques missionaries); Der Neue-Weltbott mit allerhand Nachtrichten deren Missionar. Soc. Jesu, ed. Stocklein and others (36 vols. Augsburg, Gratz, 1738-); Hounder, Deutcher jesuiten Missionäre (Freiburg, 1899). For literature of particular missions see those titles. Leclercq, Premier établissment de la foy dans la Nouvelle-France (Paris, 1619), tr. Shea (New York 1881); Campbell, Pioneer Priests of North America, (New York, 1908-11); Bourne, Spain in America (New York, 1904); Parkman, The Jesuits in North America (New York, Boston, 1868); Rochemonteix, Les jesuites et la Nouvelle-France au xviii(e) siècle (Paris, 1896); Charlevoux, Hist de la Nouvelle-France (Paris, 1744). Campbell (B.U.), Biog. Sketch of Fr. Andrew White and his Companions, the first Missionaries of Maryland (in the Metropolitan Catholic Almanac, Baltimore, 1841); Idem. Hist. Sketch of the Early Christian Missions among the Indians of Maryland (Maryland Hist. Soc., 8 Jan 1846); Johnson, The Foundation of Maryland in Maryland Hist. Soc. Fund Publications no. 18; Kip. Early Jesuit Missionaries in North America (New York, 1882); Idem, Hist Scenes from Old Jesuit Missions (New York, 1875); The Jesuit Relations. ed. Thwaites (73 vols., Cleveland, 1896-1901); Shea, Jesuits, Recollects, and Indians, in Winsor, Narrative and Critical Hist. of America (Boston, 1889); Hughes, Hist. of the Soc. of Jesus in North America, Colonial and Federal (Cleveland, 1908-); Shea, Hist. of the Catholic Church within the limits of the United States (New York, 1886-92); Schall, Hist. relatio de ortu et progressu fidei orthod. in regno Chinesi 1581-1669 (Ratisbon, 1872); Ricci, Opere storiche, ed. Venturi (Macerata, 1911). J.H. POLLEN The Suppression of the Jesuits (1770-1773) The Suppression of the Jesuits (1750-1773) The Suppression is the most difficult part of the history of the Society. Having enjoyed very high favor among Catholic peoples, kings, prelates, and popes for two centuries and a half centuries, it suddenly becomes an object of frenzied hostility, is overwhelmed with obloquy, and overthrown with dramatic rapidity. Every work of the Jesuits -- their vast missions, their noble colleges, their churches -- all is taken from them or destroyed. They are banished, and their order suppressed, with harsh and denunciatory words even from the pope. What makes the contrast more striking is that their protectors for the moment are former enemies -- the Russians and Frederick of Prussia. Like many intricate problems, its solution is best found by beginning with what is easy to understand. We look forward a generation, and we see that every one of the thrones, the pope's not excluded, which had been active in the Suppression is overwhelmed. France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy become, and indeed still are, a prey to the extravagance of the Revolutionary movement. The Suppression of the Society was due to the same causes which in further devlopment brought about the French Revolution. These causes varied somewhat in different countries. In France, many influences combined, as we shall see, from Jansenism to Free-thought, to the then prevalent impatience with the old order of things (see France, VI, 172). Some have thought that the Suppression was primarily due to these currents of thought. Others attribute it chiefly to the absolutism of the Bourbons. For, though in France the king was averse to the Suppression, the destructive forces acquired their power because he was too indolent to exercise control, which at that time he alone possessed. Outside France it is plain that autocracy, acting through high-handed ministers, was the determining cause. Portugal In 1750, Joseph I of Portugal appointed Sebastian Joseph Carvalho, afterwards Marquis of Pombal (q.v.) as his first minister. Carvalho's quarrel with the Jesuits began with a quarrel over an exchange of Territory with Spain. San Sacramento was exchanged for the Seven Reductions of Paraguay which were under Spain. The Society's wonderful missions there were coveted by the Portuguese, who believed the Jesuits were mining gold. So the Indians were ordered to quit their country; and the Jesuits endeavored to lead them quietly to the distant land allotted to them. But owing to the harsh conditions imposed, the Indians rose in arms against the transfer, and the so-called war of Paraguay ensued, which, of course, was disasterous to the Indians. Then step by step the quarrel with the Jesuits was pushed to extremities. The weak king was persuaded to remove them from Court; a war of pamphlets against him was commenced; the Fathers were first forbidden to undertake the temporal administration of the missions, and then they were deported from America. On 1 April 1758, a brief was obtained from the aged pope Benedict XIV, appointing Cardinal Saldanha to investigate the allegations against the Jesuits, which had been raised in the King of Portugal's name. But it does not follow that the pope had forejudged the case against the order. On the contrary, if we take into view all the letters and instructions sent to the Cardinal, we see that the pope was distinctly skeptical as to the gravity of the alleged abuses. He ordered a minute inquiry, but one conducted so as to safeguard the reputation of the Society. All matters of serious importance were to be referred back to himself. The pope died five weeks later on 3 May. On 15 May, Saldanha, having received the Brief only a fortnight before, omitting the thorough house-to-house visitation that had been ordered, and pronouncing on the issues which the pope had reserved to himself, declared that the Jesuits were guilty of having exercised illicit, public, and scandalous commerce both in Portugal and in its colonies. Three weeks later, at Pombal's instigation, all faculties were withdrawn from the Jesuits throughout the patriachate of Lisbon. Before Clement XIII (q.v.) had beome pope (6 July, 1758) the work of the Society had been destroyed, and in 1759 it was civilly suppressed. The last step was taken inconsequence of a plot against the chamberlain Texeiras, but suspected to have been aimed at the king, and of this the Jesuits were supposed to have approved. But the grounds of suspicion were never clearly stated, much less proved. The height of Pombal's persecution was reached with the burning (1761) of the saintly Father Malagrida (q.v.), ostensibly for heresy; while the other Fathers, who had been crowded into prisons, were left to perish by the score. Intercourse between the Church of Portugal and Rome was broken off till 1770. France The Suppression in France was occasioned by the injuries inflicted by the English navy on French commerce in 1755. The Jesuit missionaries held a heavy stake in Martinique. They did not and could not trade, that is, buy cheap to sell dear, any more than any other religious. But they did sell the products of their great mission farms, in which many natives were employed, and this was allowed, partly to provide for the current expenses of the mission, partly in order to protect the simple, childlike natives from the common plague of dishonest intermediaries. Père Antoin La Vallette, superior of the Martinique missions, managed these transactions with no little success, and success encouraged him to go too far. He began to borrow money to work the large undeveloped resources of the colony, and a strong letter from the govenor of the island dated 1753 is extant in praise of his enterprise. But on the outbreak of war, ships carrying goods of an estimated value of 2,000,000 livres were captured and he suddenly became a bankrupt, for very large sum. His creditors were egged on to demand payment from the procurator of Paris, but he, relying on what certainly was the letter of the law, refused responsibillity for the debts of an independent mission, though offering to negotiate for a settlement, for which he held out assured hopes. The creditors went to the courts, and an order was made (1760) obliging the Society to pay, and giving leave to distrain in the case of non-payment. The Fathers, on the advice of their lawyers, appealed to the Grand'chambre of the Parlement of Paris. This turned out to be an imprudent step. For not only did the Parlement support the lower court, 8 May, 1761, but having once gotten the case into its hands, the Society's enemies in that assembly determined to strike a great blow at the order. Enemies of every sort combined. The Jansenists were numerous among the gens-de-robe, and at that moment were especailly keen to be revenged on the orthodox party. The Sorbonnists, too, the university rivals of the great teaching order, joined in the attack. So did the Gallicans, the Philosophes, and the Encyclopédistes. Louis XIV was weak and the influence of his court divided; while his wife and children were earnestly in favor of the Jesuits, his able first minister, the Duc de Choiseul (q.v.) played into the hands of the Parlement, and the royal mistress, Madame de Pompadour, to whom the Jesuits had refused absolution, was a bitter opponent. The determination of the Parlement of Paris in time bore down all opposition. The attack on the Jesuits, as such, was opened by the Janseistic Abbé Chauvelin, 17 April, 1762, who denounced the Constitution of the Jesuits as the cause of the alleged defalcations of the order. This was followed by the compte-rendu on the Constitutions, 3-7 July, 1762, full of misconceptions, but not yet extravagent in hostility. Next day Chauvelin descended to a vulgar but efficacious means of exciting odium by denouncing the Jesuits' teaching and morals, especially on the matter of tyrannicide. In the Parlement, the Jesuits' case was now desperate. After a long conflict with the crown in which the indolent minister-ridden sovereign failed to assert his will to any purpose, the Parlement issued its well-known " Extraits des assertions", a blue-book, as we might say, containing a congeries of passages from Jesuit theologians and canonists, in which they were alleged to teach every sort of immoratlity and error, from tyrannicide, magic, and Arianism, to treason, Socinianism, and Lutheranism. On 6 August, 1762, the final arrêt was issued condeming the Society to extinction, but the king's intervention brought eight month's delay. In favour of the Jesuits, there had been some striking testimonies, especailly from the French clergy in the two convocations summoned on 30 November, 1761, and 1 May, 1762. But the series of letters and addresses published by Clement XIII afford a truely irrefragable attestation in favour of the order. Nothing, however, availed to stay the Parlement. The king's counter-edict delayed indeed the execution of its arrêt, and meantime a compromise was suggested by the Court. If the French Jesuits would stand apart from the order, under a French vicar, with French customs, the Crown would still protect them. In spite of the dangers of refusal the Jesuits would not consent; and upon consulting the pope, he (not Ricci) used the famous phrase Sint ut sunt, aut non sint (de Ravignan, "Clement XIII", I, 105, the words are attributed to Ricci also). Louis's intervention hindered the execution of the arrêt against the Jesuits until 1 April, 1763. The colleges were then closed, and by a further arrêt of 9 March, 1764, the Jesuits were required to renounce their vows under pain of banishment. Only three priests and a few scholastics accepted the conditions. At the end of November, 1764, the king unwillingly signed an edict dissolving the Society throughout his dominions, for they were still protected by some provincial parlements, as Franche-Comté, Alsace, and Artois. But in the draft of the edict, he canceled numerous clauses, which implied that the Society was guilty; and writing to Choiseul, he concluded with the weak but significant words: "If I adopt the advice of others for the peace of my realm, you must make the changes I propose, or I will do nothing. I say no more, lest I should say too much." Spain, Naples, and Parma The Suppression in Spain, and its quasi-dependencies, Naples and Parma, and in the Spanish colonies was carried through by autocratic kings and ministers. Their deliberations were conducted in secrecy, and they purposely kept their deliberations to themselves. It is only in late years that a clue has been traced back to Bernardo Tenucci, the anti-clerical minister of Naples, who acquired a great influence over Charles III before the king passed from the throne of Naples to that of Spain. In this minister's correspondence are found all the ideas which from time to time guided the Spanish policy. Charles, a man of good moral character, had entrusted his government to the Count Aranda and other followers of Voltaire; and he had brought from Italy a finance minister, whose nationality made the government unpopular, while his exactions led in 1766 to rioting and the publications of various squibs, lampoons, and attacks upon the administration. An extraordinary council was appointed to investigate the matter, as it was declared that people so simple as rioters could never have produced the political pamphlets. They proceeded to take secret information, the tenor of which is no longer known; but records remain to show that in September, the council had resolved to incriminate the Society, and that by 29 January 1767, its expulsion was settled. Secret orders, which were to be opened at midnight between the first and second of April, 1767, were sent to the magistrates of every town where a Jesuit resided. The plan worked smoothly. That morning, 6000 Jesuits were marching like convicts to the coast, where they were deported, first to the Papal States, and ultimately to Corsica. Tanucci pursued a similar policy in Naples. On 3 November the religious, again without trial, and this time without even an accusation, were marched across the frontier into the Papal States, and threatened with death if they returned. It will be noted that in these expulsions, the smaller the state, the greater the contempt of the ministers for any forms of law. The Duchy of Parma was the smallest of the so-called Bourbon courts, and so aggressive in its anti-clericalism that Clement XIII addressed to it (30 January, 1768) a monitorium, or warning, that its excesses were punishable with ecclesiastical censures. At this all parties to the Bourbon "Family Compact" turned in fury against the Holy See, and demanded the entire destruction of the Society. As a preliminary, Parma at once drove the Jesuits out of its territories, confiscating as usual all their possessions. Clement XIV From this time till his death (2 February 1769), Clement XIII was harassed with the utmost rudeness and violence. Portions of his states were seized by force, he was insulted to his face by the Bourbon representatives, and it was made clear that, unless he gave way, a great schism would ensue, such as Portugal had already commenced. The conclave which followed lasted from 15 Feb. to May 1769. The Bourbon courts, through the so-called "crown cardinals", succeeded in excluding any of the party, nicknamed Zelanti, who would have taken a firm position in defense of the order, and finally elected Lorenzo Ganganelli, who took the name Clement XIV. It has been stated by Cretineau-Joly (Clement XIV, p. 260), that Ganganelli, before his election, engaged himself to the crown cardinals by some sort of stipulation that he would suppress the Society, which would have involved an infraction of the conclave oath. This is now disproved by the statement of the Spanish agent Azpuru, who was specially deputed to act with the crown cardinals. He wrote on 18 May, just before the election, "None of the cardinals has gone so far as to propose to anyone that the Suppression be assured by a written or spoken promise", and just after 25 May he wrote, "Ganganelli neither made a promise nor refused it". On the other hand it seems he did write words, which were taken by the crown cardinals as an indication that the Bourbons would get their way with him (de Bernis's letters of 28 July and 20 November, 1769). No sooner was Clement on the throne than the Spanish court, backed by the other members of the "Family Compact", renewed their overpowering pressure. On 2 August, 1769, Choiseul wrote a strong letter demanding the Suppression with two months, and the pope now made his first written promise that he would grant the measure, but he declared that he must have more time. Then began a series of transaction, which some have not unnaturally been interpreted as a devices to escape by delays from the terrible act of destruction, toward which Clement was being pushed. He passed more than two years in treating with the Courts of Turin, Tuscany, Milan, Genoa, Bavaria, etc. which would not easily consent to the Bourbon projects. The same ulterior object may perhaps be detected in some of the minor annoyances now inflicted on the Society. From several colleges, such as those of Frascati, Ferrar, Bologna, and the Irish College at Rome, the Jesuits were, after a prolonged examination, ejected with much show of hostility. And there were moments, as for instance after the fall of Choiseul, when it really seemed as though the Society might have escaped; but eventually the obstinacy of Charles III always prevailed. In the middle of 1772 Charles sent a new ambassador to Rome, Don Joseph Moñino, afterwards Count Florida Blanca, a strong, hard man, "full of artifice, sagacity, and dissimulation, and no one more set on the suppression of the Jesuits". Heretofore, the negotiations had been in the hands of clever, diplomatic Cardinal de Bernis, French ambassador to the pope. Moñino now took the lead, de Bernis now coming in afterward as a friend to urge the acceptance of his advice. At last, on 6 September, Moñino gave in a paper suggesting a line for the pope to follow, which he did in part adopt, in drawing up the brief of Suppression. By November the end was coming in sight, and in December Clement put Moñino into communication with a secretary; and they drafted the instrument together, the minute being ready by 4 January, 1773. By 6 February, Moñino had got it back from the pope in a form to be conveyed to the Bourbon courts, and by 8 June, their modifications having been taken account of, the minute was thrown into its final form and signed. Still the pope delayed until Monino constrained him to get copies printed; and as these were dated, no delay was possible beyond that date, which was 16 August, 1773. A second brief was issued which determined the manner in which the Suppression was to be carried out. To secure secrecy, one regulation was introduced which led, in foreign countries, to some unexpected results. The Brief was not to be published, Urbi et Orbi, but only to each college or place by the local bishop. At Rome, the father-general was confined first, at the English College, then in Castel S. Angelo, with his assistants. The papers of the Society were handed over to a special commission, together with its title deeds and store of money, 40,000 scudi (about $50,000), which belonged almost entirely to definite charities. An investigation of the papers was begun, but never brought to any issue. In the Brief of Suppression, the most striking feature is the long list of allegations against the Society, with no mention of what is favorable; the tone of the brief is very adverse. On the other hand the charges are recited categorically; they are not definitely stated to have been proved. The object is to represent the order as having occasioned perpetual strife, contradiction, and trouble. For the sake of peace the Society must be suppressed. A full explanation of these and other anomalous features cannot yet be given with certainty. The chief reason for them no doubt was that the Suppression was an administrative measure, not a judicial sentence based on judicial inquiry. We see that the course chosen avoided many difficulties, especially the open contradiction of preceding popes, who had so often praised or confirmed the Society. Again, such statements were less liable to be controverted; there were different ways of interpreting the Brief which commended themselves to Zelanti and Bourbonici respectively. The last word on the subject is doubtless that of Alphonsus di Ligouri: "Poor pope! What could he do in the circumstances in which he was placed, with all the Sovereigns conspiring to demand this Suppression? As for ourselves, we much keep silence, respect the secret judgment of God, and hold ourselves in peace". BIBLIOGRAPHY. Crétineau-Joly, Clement XIV et les jésuites (Paris, 1847); Danvilla y Collado, Reinado de Carolos III (Madrid, 1893); Delplace, La suppression des jésuites in Etudes (Paris, 5-20 July, 1908); Ferrar del Rio, Hist. del Reinado de Carlos III (Madrid, 1856); de Ravignan, Clément XIII et Clément XIV (Paris, 1854); Rosseau, Règne de Charles III d'Espagne (Paris, 1907); Smith, Suppression of the Soc. of Jesus in The Month (London, 1902-3); Theiner, Gesch. des Pontificats Clement XIV (Paris, 1853; French tr., Brussels, 1853); Kobler, Die Aufhebung der Gesellschaft Jesu (Linz, 1873); Weld, Suppression of the Soc. of Jesus in the Portuguese Dominions (London, 1877); Zalenski, The Jesuits in White Russia (in Polish, 1874; French tr. Paris, 1886); Carayon, Le père Ricci et la suppression de la comp. de Jésus (Pointiers, 1869); Saint-Priest, Chute des jésuites (Paris, 1864); Nippold, Jesuitenorden von seiner weiderherstellung (Mannheim, 1867). J.H. POLLEN History of the Jesuits (1773-1814) The Jesuits During the Interim (1773-1814) The execution of the Brief of Suppression having been largely left to local bishops, there was room for a good deal of variety in the treatment the Jesuits might receive in different places. In Austria and Germany they were generally allowed to teach (but with secular clergy as superiors); often they became men of mark as preachers, like Beauregard, Muzzarelli, and Alexander Lanfant (b. at Lyons, 6 Sept. 1726, and massacred in Paris, 3 Sept. 1793) and writers like Francios-X. de Feller (q.v.), Zaccharia, Ximenes. The first to receive open official approbation of their new works were probably the English Jesuits, who in 1778 obtained a Brief approving their well-known Academy of Liege (now at Stonyhurst). But in Russia, and until 1780 in Prussia, the Empress Catherine and King Frederick II desired to maintain the Society as a teaching body. They forbade the bishops to promulgate the Brief until their placet was obtained. Bishop Massalski in White Russia, 19 September, 1773 therefore ordered the Jesuit superiors to continue to exercise jurisdiction till further notice. On 2 February, 1780, with the approbation of Bishop Siestrzencewicz's Apostolic visitor, a novitiate was opened. To obtain higher sanction for what had been done, the envoy Benislaski was sent by Catherine to Rome. But it must be remembered that the animus of the Boubon courts against the Society was still unchecked; and in some countries, as in Austria under Joseph II, the situation was worse than before. There were many in the Roman Curia who had worked their way up by their activity against the order, or held pensions created out of former Jesuit property. Pius VI declined to meet Catherine's requests. All he could do was express an indefinite assent by word of mouth, without issuing any written documents, or observing the usual formalities; and he ordered that strict secrecy should be observed about the whole mission. Benislaski received these messages on 12 March, 1783, and later gave the Russian Jesuits an attestation of them (24 July, 1785). On the other hand, it can cause no wonder that the enemies of the Jesuits should from the first have watched the survival in White Russia with jealousy, and have brought pressure to bear on the pope to ensure their suppression. He was constrained to declare that he had not revoked the Brief of Suppression, and that he regarded as an abuse anything done against it, but that the Empress Catherine would not allow him to act freely (29 July, 1783). These utterances were not in real conflict with the answer given to Benislaski, which only amount to an assertion that the escape from the Brief by the Jesuits in Russia was not schismatical, and that the pope approved of their continuing as they were doing. Their existence was therefore legitimate, or at least not illegitimate, though positive approval in legal form did not come until Pius VII's brief "Catholicæ Fidei" (7 March, 1801). Meanwhile the same or similar causes to those which brought about the Suppression of the Society were leading to the disruption of the whole civil order. The French Revolution (1789) was overthrowing every throne that had combined against the Jesuits, and in the anguish of that trial, many were the cries for the re-establishment of the order. But amid the turmoil of the Napoleonic Wars, during the long captivity of Pius VI (1798-1800) and of Pius VII (1809-1814), such a consummation was impossible. The English Jesuits, however (whose academy at Liège, driven over to England by the French invasion of 1794, had been approved by a brief in 1796), succeeded in obtaining oral permission from Pius VII for their aggregation to the Russian Jesuits, 27 May, 1803. The commission was to be kept secret, and was not even communicated by the pope to Propaganda. Next winter, its prefect, Cardinal Borgia, wrote a hostile letter, not indeed canceling the vows take, or blaming what had been done, but forbidding the bishops "to recognize the Jesuits" or "to admit their privileges until their obtained permission from the Congregation of Propaganda. Considering the extreme difficulties of the times, we cannot wonder at orders being given from Rome which were not always quite consistent. Broadly speaking, however, we see that the popes worked their way towards a restoration of the order by degrees. First, by approving community life, which had been specifically forbidden by the Brief of Suppression (this was done in England in 1778). Second, by permitting vows (for England in 1803). Third, by restoring the full privileges of a religious order (these were not recognized in England until 1829). The Society was extended by Brief from Russia to the Kingdom of Naples, 30 July, 1804; but on the invasion of the French in 1806, all houses were dissolved, except those in Sicily. The Superior in Italy during these changes was the Venerable Giuseppe M. Pignatelli (q.v.). In their zeal for the re-establishment of the Society some of the ex-Jesuits united themselves into congregations which might, while avoiding the now-unpopular name of Jesuits, preserve some of its essential features. Thus arose the Fathers of Faith (Peres de la Foi), founded with papal sanction by Nicholas Paccanari in 1797. A somewhat similar congregation, called "The Fathers of the Sacred Heart", had been commenced in 1794 in Belgium, under Père Charles de Broglie, who was succeeded by Père Joseph Varin as superior. By the wish of Pius VI, the two congregations amalgamated, and were generally known as the Paccanarists. They soon spread to many lands; Paccanari, however, did not prove to be a good superior, and seemed to be working against a union with the Jesuits still in Russia; this caused Père Varin and others to leave him. Some of them entered the Society in Russia at once; and at the Restoration, the others joined en masse. (See Sacred Heart of Jesus, Society of the). J.H. POLLEN The Restored Jesuits (1814-1912) The Jesuits After the Restoration (1814-1912) Pius VII had resolved to restore the Society during his captivity in France; and after his return to Rome he did so with little delay; 7 August, 1814, by the Bull "Solicitudo omnium ecclesiarum," and therewith, the general in Russia, Thaddeus Brzozowski, acquired universal jurisdiction. After the permission to continue given by Pius VI, the first Russian congregation had elected as vicar-general Stanislaus Czerniewicz (17 Oct., 1782-7 July 1785), who was succeeded by Gabriel Lenkiewicz (27 Sept., 1785-10 Nov., 1798) and Francis Kareu (1 Feb., 1799-20 July, 1902). On the receipt of the Brief "Catholicae Fidei", of 7 March, 1801, his title was changed from vicar-general to general. Gabriel Gruber succeeded (10 Oct., 1802-26 March 1805) and was followed by Thaddeus Brzozowski (2 Sept., 1805). Almost simultaneously with the death of the latter, 5 Feb., 1820, the Russians, who had banished the Jesuits from St. Petersburg in 1815, expelled them from the whole country. It seems a remarkable providence that Russia, contrary to all precedent, should have protected the Jesuits just at the time when all other nations turned against them, and reverted to her normal hostility when the Jesuits began to find toleration elsewhere. Upon the decease of Brzozowski, Father Petrucci, the vicar, fell under the influence of the still-powerful anti-Jesuit party to Rome, and proposed to alter some points in the Institute. The twentieth general congregation took a severe view of his proposals, expelled him from the order, and elected Father Aloysius Fortis (18 Oct, 1820-27 Jan, 1829) (q.v.); John Roothaan succeeded (9 July 1829-8 May 1853) and was followed by Peter Beckx (q.v.) (2 July, 1853-4 March, 1887). Anton Maria Anderledy, vicar-general on 11 May, 1884, became general on Beckx's death, and died on 18 Jan., 1892; Louis Martin (2 Oct, 1892-18 April, 1906). Father Martin commenced a new series of histories of the Society, to be based on the increasing materials now available, and to deal with many problems about which older annalists, Orlandi and his successors, were not curious. Volumes by Astrain, Duhr, Fouqueray, Hughes, Kroess, Tacchi-venturi have appeared. The present general, Francis Xavier Wernz, was elected on 8 Sept., 1906. Though the Jesuits of the nineteenth century cannot show a martry-roll as brilliant as that of their predecessors, the persecuting laws passed against them surpass in number, extent, and continuance those endured by previous generations. The practical exclusion from university teaching, the obligation of military service in many countries, the wholesale confiscations of religious property, and the dispersion of twelve of its eldest and once most flourishing provinces are very serious hindrances to religious vocations. On a teaching order such blows fall very heavily. The cause of trouble has generally been due to that propaganda of irreligion which was developed during the Revolution and is still active through Freemasonry in those lands in which the Revolution took root. France This is plainly seen in France. In that country, the Society began in 1815 with the direction of some petits séminaries and congregations, and by giving missions. They were attacked by the liberals, especially by the Comte de Montlosier in 1823, and their schools, one of which St-Achuel, already contained 800 students, were closed in 1829. The Revolution of July (1830) brought them no relief; but in the visitation of cholera in 1832 the Fathers pressed to the fore, and so began to recover influence. In 1845, there was another attack by Thiers, which drew out the answer of de Ravignan (q.v.). The revolution of 1848 at first sent them again into exile, but the liberal measures which succeeded, especially the freedom of teaching, enabled them to return and to open many schools (1850). In the later days of the Empire, greater difficulties were raised, but with the advent of the Third Republic (1870), these restrictions were removed and progress continued, until, after threatening measures in 1878, came the decree of 29 March, 1880, issued by M. Jules Ferry. This brought about a new dispersion and a substitution of staffs of non-religious teachers in the Jesuit colleges. But the French government did not press their enactments, and the Fathers returned by degrees; and before the end of the century, their houses and schools in France were as prosperous as ever. Then came the overwhelming Associations laws of M. Waldeck-Rousseau, leading to renewed by not complete dispersions and to the re-introduction of non-religious staffs in the colleges. The right of the order to hold property was also violently suppressed; and, by a refinement of cruelty, any property suspected of being held by a congregation may now be confiscated, unless it is proved not to be so held. Other clauses of this law penalize any meetings of the members of a congregation. The order is under an iron hand from which no escape is, humanly speaking, possible. For the moment nevertheless public opinion disapproves of its rigid execution, and thusfar in spite of all sufferings, of the dispersal of all houses, the confiscation of churches and the loss of practically all property and schools, the numbers of the order have been maintained, nay slightly increased, and so too have the opportunities for work, especially in literature and theology, etc. (See also Carayon; Deschamps; Du Lac; Olivant; Ravignan.) Spain In Spain the course of events has been similar. Recalled by Ferdinand VII in 1815, the Society was attacked by the Revolution of 1820; and twenty-five Jesuits were slain at Madrid in 1822. The Fathers, however, returned after 1823 and took part in the management of the military school and the College of Nobles at Madrid (1827). But in 1834 they were again attacked at Madrid, fourteen were killed and the whole order was banished on 4 July, 1835, by a Liberal ministry. After 1848 they began to return and were resettled after the Concordat, 26 Nov., 1852. At the Revolution of 1868 they were again banished (12 Oct.), but after a few years they were allowed to come back and have since made great progress. At the present time, however, another expulsion is threatened (1912). In Portugal, the Jesuits were recalled in 1829, dispersed again in 1834; but afterwards returned. Though they were not formally sanctioned by law, they had a large college and several churches, from which, however, they were driven out in October, 1910, with great violence and cruelty. Italy In Italy they were expelled from Naples (1820-21) but in 1836 there were admitted to Lombardy. Driven out by the Revolution of 1848 from almost the whole peninsula, they were able to return when peace was restored, except to Turin. Then with the gradual growth of United Italy they were step by step suppressed again by law everywhere, and finally at Rome in 1871. But though formally suppressed and unable to keep schools, except on a very small scale, the law is so worded that it does not press at every point, nor is it often enforced with acrimony. Numbers do not fall off, and activities increase. In Rome, they have charge, inter alia, of the Gregorian University, the "Institutum Biblicum", and the German and Latin-American colleges. Germanic Provinces Of the Germanic Provinces, that of Austria may be said to have been recommenced by the immigration of many Polish Fathers from Russia to Galicia in 1820 and colleges were founded at Tarnopol, Lemberg, Linz (1837), and Innsbruck in 1838, in which they were assigned the theological faculty in 1856. The German province properly so called could at first make foundations only in Switzerland at Brieg (1814) and Freiburg (1818). But after the Sonderbund, they were obliged to leave, then being 264 in number (111 priests). They were now able to open several houses in the Rhine provinces, etc., making steady progress until they were ejected during Bismark's Kulturkampf (1872), when they numbered 755 members (351 priests). They now count 1150 (with 574 priests) and are known throughout the world by their excellent publications. (See Antoniewicz; Deharbe; Hasslacher; Pesch; Roh; Spillman.) Belgium The Belgian Jesuits were unable to return to their country till Belgium was separated from Holland in 1830. Since then they have prospered exceedingly. In 1832, when they became a separate province, they numbered 105; at their 75 years' jubilee in 1907, they numbered 1168. In 1832, two colleges with 167 students; in 1907, 15 colleges with 7564 students. Congregations of the Blessed Virgin, originally founded by a Belgian Jesuit, still flourish. In Belgium, 2529 such congregations have been aggregated to the Prima Primaria at Rome, and of these 156 are under Jesuit direction. To say nothing of missions and of retreats to convents, diocese, etc., the province had six houses of retreats, in which 245 retreats were given to 9840 persons. Belgium supplies the foreign missions of Eastern Bengal and the diocese of Galle in Ceylon. In the bush country of Chota Nagpur, there began, in 1887, a wonderful movement of aborigines (Kôles and Ouraons) toward the Church, and the Catholics in 1907 numbered 137,120 (i.e. 62,385 baptized and 74,735 catechumens). Over 35,000 conversions had been made in 1906, owing to the penetration of Christianity into the district of Jashpur. Besides this there are excellent colleges at Darjeeling and at Kurseong; at Candy in Ceylon the Jesuits have charge of the great pontifical seminary for educating native clergy for the whole of India. In all they have 442 churches, chapels, or stations, 479 schools, 14,467 scholars, with about 167,000 Catholics, and 262 Jesuits, of whom 150 are priests. The Belgian Fathers have also a flourishing mission in the Congo, in the districts of Kwango and Stanley Pool, which was begun in 1893; in 1907, the converts already numbered 31,402. England Nowhere did the Jesuits get through the troubles inevitable to the interim more easily than in conservative England. The college at Liege continued to train their students in the old tradition, while the English bishop permitted the ex-Jesuits to maintain their missions and a sort of corporate discipline. But there were difficulties in recognizing the restored order, lest this should impede Emancipation (see Roman Catholic Relief Bill), which remained in doubt for so many years. Eventually Leo XII, on 1 Jan., 1829, declared the Bull of restoration to have force in England. After this the Society grew, slowly at first, but more rapidly afterwards. It had 73 members in 1815, 729 in 1910. The principal colleges are Stonyhurst (St. Omers, 1592, migrated to Bruges, 1762, to Liege, 1773, to Stonyhurst, 1794); Mount St. Mary's (1842); Liverpool (1842); Beaumont (1861); Glasgow (1870); Wimbledon, London (1887); Stanford Hill, London (1894); Leeds (1905). The 1910, the province had in England and Scotland, besides the usual novitiate and houses of study, two houses for retreats, 50 churches or chapels, attended by 148 priests. The congregations amounted to 97,641; baptisms, 3746; confessions 844,079; Easter confessions, 81,065; Communions, 1,303,591; converts, 725; extreme unctions, 1698; marriages, 782; children in elementary schools, 18,328. The Guiana mission (19 priests) has charge of about 45,000 souls; the Zambesi mission (35 priests), 4679 souls. (See also the articles Morris; Plowden; Porter; Stevenson; Coleridge; Harper.) Ireland There were 24 ex-Jesuits in Ireland in 1776, but by 1803, only two. Of these, Father O'Callahan renewed his vows at Stonyhurst in 1803, and he and Father Betagh, who was eventually the last survivor, succeeded in finding some excellent postulants who made their novitiate in Stonyhurst, their studies at Palermo, and returned between 1812 and 1814, Father Betagh, who had become vicar-general of Dublin, having survived to the year 1811. Father Peter Kenney (d. 1841) was the first superior of the new mission, a man of remarkable eloquence, who when visitor of the Society in America (1830-1833) preached by invitation before Congress. From 1812-1813, he was vice-president of Maynooth College under Dr. Murray, the co-adjutor bishop of Dublin. The College of Clonowes Wood was begun in 1813; Tullabeg in 1818 (now a house of both probations); Dublin (1841); Mungret (Apostolic School, 1883). In 1883, too, the Irish bishops trusted to the Society the University College, Dublin, in connection with the late Royal University of Ireland. The marked superiority of this college to the richly endowed Queen's Colleges of Belfast, Cork, and Galway contributed much to establish the claim of the Irish Catholics to adequate university education. When this claim had been met by the present National University, the University College was returned to the Bishops. Five Fathers now hold teaching posts in the new university, and a hotel for students is being provided. Under the Act of Catholic Emancipation (q.v.) 58 Jesuits were registered in Ireland in 1830. In 1910 there were 367 in the province, of whom 100 are in Australia, where they have four colleges at and near Melbourne and Sydney, and missions in South Australia. United States of America Under the direction of Bishop Carroll the members of the Corporation of Roman Catholic Clergymen in Maryland were the chief factors in founding and maintaining Georgetown College (q.v.) from 1791 to 1805, when they resumed their relations with the Society still existing in Russia, and were so strongly reinforced by other members of the order from Europe that they could assume full charge of the institution, which they have since retained. On the Restoration of the Society in 1814 these nineteen fathers constituted the mission of the United States. For a time (1808 to 1817) some of them were employed in the Diocese of New York just erected, Father Anthony Kohlmann (q.v.) administering the diocese temporarily, others engaging in school and parish work. In 1816, Gonzaga College, Washington, D. C., was founded. In 1833, the mission of the United States became a province under the title of Maryland. Since then the history of the province is a record of development proportionate with the growth in Catholicity in the various fields specially cultivated by the Society. The colleges of the Holy Cross, Worcester (founded in 1843), Loyola College, Baltimore (1852), Boston College (1863) have educated great numbers of young men for the ministry and liberal professions. Up to 1879, members of the Society had been labouring in New York as part of the New York-Canada mission. In that year, they became affiliated with the first American province under the title Maryland-New York. This was added to the old province besides several residences and parishes, the colleges of St. Frances Xavier and St. John (now Fordham University), New York City, and St. Peter's College, Jersey City, New Jersey. St. Joseph's College, Philadelphia, was chartered in 1852, and the Brooklyn College opened in 1908. In the same year, Canisius College, and two parishes in Buffalo, and one parish in Boston for German Catholics, with 88 members of the German province were affiliated with this province, which has now (1912) 863 members with 12 colleges and 13 parishes, 1 house of higher study for the members of the Society, 1 novitiate in the New England and Middle States, and in the Virginias, with the Mission of Jamaica, British West Indies, The Missouri province began as a mission from Maryland in 1823. Father Charles van Quickenborn, a Belgian, led several young men of his own nationality who were eager to work among the Indians, among them De Smet (q.v.), Van Assche, and Verhaegen. As a rule, the tribes were too nomadic to evangelize, and the Indian schools attracted only a very small number of pupils. The missions among the Osage and Pottawatomie were more permanent and fruitful. It was with experience gathered in these fields that Father De Smet started his mission in the Rocky Mountains in 1840. A college, now St. Louis University, was opened in 1829. For ten years, 1838-48, a college was maintained at Grand Coteau, Louisiana; in 1840, St. Xavier's was opened at Cincinnati. With the aid of seventy-eight Jesuits, who came over from Italy and Switzerland in the years of revolution, 1838-48, two colleges were maintained, St. Joseph's, Bardstown, 1848 until 1861, another at Louisville, Kentucky, 1849-57. In this last year, a college was opened at Chicago. The mission became a province in 1863; since then, colleges have been opened at Detroit, Omaha, Milwaukee, St. Mary's (Kansas). By accession of part of the Buffalo mission when it was separated from the German province in 1907, the Missouri province acquired an additional 180 members, and colleges at Cleveland, Toledo, and Prarie du Chein, besides several residences and missions. Its members work in the Territory west of the Alleghenies as far as Kansas and Omaha, and from the lakes to the northern line of Tennessee and Oklahoma, and also in the Mission of British Honduras (q.v.). New Orleans For five years, 1566-1571, members of the Peruvian province laboured among the Indians along the east coast of Florida, where Father Martines was massacred near St. Augustine in 1566. They penetrated into Virginia, where eight of their number were massacred by Indians at a station named Axaca, supposed to be on the Rappahannock River. Later, Jesuits from Canada, taking as their share of the Louisiana territory the Illinois country and afterwards from the Ohio River to the gulf east of the Mississippi, worked among the Chocktaw, Chickasaw, Natchez, Yazoo. Two of their number were murdered by the Natchez, and one by the Chickasaw. Their expulsion in 1763 is the subject of a monograph by Carayon, "Documents inédits", XIV. Originally evangelized by Jesuits from the Lyons province, the New Orleans mission became a province in 1907, having seven colleges and four residences. It has now 255 members working in the territory north of the Gulf of Mexico to Missouri, and as far east as Virginia. California In 1907, A province was formed in California, comprising the missions of California, the Rocky Mountains, and Alaska (United States). The history of these missions is narrated under California Missions; Missions, Catholic Indian, of the United States; Alaska; Idaho; Sioux Indians. New Mexico In the mission of New Mexico ninety-three Jesuits are occupied in the college at Denver, Colorado, and in various missions in that state, Arizona, and New Mexico; the mission depends on the Italian province of Naples. In all the provinces of the United States there are 6 professional schools with 4363 students; 26 colleges with full courses, with 2417, and 34 preparatory and high schools with 8735 pupils. Canada Jesuits returned to Canada from St. Mary's College, Kentucky, which had been taken over, in 1834, by members of the province of France. When St. Mary's was given up in 1846, the staff came to take charge of St. John's College, Fordham, New York, thus forming with their fellows in Montreal the New York-Canada mission. This mission lasted till 1879, the Canadian division having by that year 1 college, 2 residences, 1 novitiate, 3 Indian missions, and 131 members. In 1888 the mission received $160,000 as its part of the sum paid by the Province of Quebec in compensation for the Jesuit estates appropriated under George III by imperial authority, and transferred to the authorities of the former Province of Canada, all parties thus agreeing that the full amount, $400,000, thus allowed was far short of the value of the estates, estimated at $2,000,000. The settlement was ratified by the pope, and the legislature of the Province of Quebec, and the balance was divided among the archdiocese of Quebec, Montreal, and other diocese, the Laval University besides receiving, in Montreal, $40,000 and in Quebec, $100,000. In 1907 the mission was constituted a province. It now has two colleges in Montreal, one at St. Boniface with 263 students in the collegiate and 722 in the preparatory classes, 2 residences and churches in Quebec, one at Guelph, Indian missions, and missions in Alaska, and 309 members. Mexico In Mexico (New Spain) Jesuit missionaries began their work in 1571, and prior to their expulsion, in 1767, they numbered 678 members of whom 468 were natives. They had over 40 colleges or seminaries, 5 residences, and 6 missionary districts, with 99 missions. The mission included Cuba, lower California, and as far south as Nicaragua. Three members of the suppressed Society who were in Mexico at the time of the Restoration formed a nucleus for its re-establishment there in 1816. In 1820, there were 32, of whom 15 were priests and 3 scholastics, in care of 4 colleges and 3 seminaries. They were dispersed in 1821. Although invited back in 1843, they could not agree to the limitations put on their activities by General Santa Anna, nor was the prospect favourable in the revolutionary condition of the country. Four of their number returning in 1854, the mission prospered, and in spite of two dispersions, 1859 and 1873, it has continued to increase in number and activity. In August, 1907, it was reconstituted a province, It has now 326 members with four colleges, 12 residences, 6 mission stations among the Tarahumara, and a novitiate (see also Mexico; Pious Fund of the Californias). Gerard, Stonyhurst Centenary Record (Belfast, 1894); Corcoran, Clongowes Centenary Record (Dublin, 1912); Woodstock Letters (Woodstock College, Maryland, 1872-); Georgetown University (Washington, 1891); The First Half Century of St. Ignatius Church and College (San Francisco, 1905); Duhr, Akten. zur Gesch. des Jesuit-missionen in Deutschland, 1842-72 (1903); Boero, Istoria della vita del R. P. Pignatelli (Rome, 1857): Poncelet, La comp. de Jésus en Belgique (Brussels, 1907); Zaradona, Hist. de la extinción y restablecimiento de la comp. de Jesus (1890); Jesuiteneorden von seiner Weiderherstellung (Mannheim, 1867). History.--A. General.--Mon. historica Soc. Jesu, ed. Rodeles (Madrid, 1894, in progress); Orlandini (continued in turn by Sacchini, Jouvancy, and Cordara), Hist. Soc. Jesu, 1540-1632 (8 vols. fol., Rome and Antwerp, 1615-1750), and Supplement (Rome, 1859); Bartoli, Dell' istoria della comp. de Gesu (6 vols. fol., Rome, 1663-73); Cretineau-Holy, Hist.de la comp. de Jesus (3rd ed., 3 vols., Paris 1859); B. N. The Jesuits: their Foundation and History (London, 1879); [Wernz], Abriss der Gesch. der Gesellschaft Jesu (Munster, 1876); Carrez Atlas geographicus Soc. Jesu (Paris, 1900); Heimbucher, Die Orden und Kongregationen der katholkischen Kirche, III (Paderborn, 1908), 2-258, contains an excellent bibliography; [Quesnel] Hist. des religieux de la comp. de Jesus (Utrecht, 174). Non-Catholic:--Steitz-Zockler in Realencycl. fur prot. Theol., s. v. Jesuitenorden; Hassenmuller, Hist.jesuitici ordinis (Frankfurt, 1593); Hospinianus, Hist. jesuitica (Zurich, 1619). B. Particular Countries.--Italy--Tacchi-Venturi Storia della comp di G. in Italia (Rome, 1910 in progress); Schinosi and Santagata Istoria della comp. di G. appartenente al Regno di Napoli (Naples, 1706-57); Alberti, La Sicilia (Palermo, 1702); Aquilera Provinciae Siculae Soc Jesu res gestae (Palermo, 1737-40); Cappelletti, I gesuiti e la republica di Venizia (Venice. 1873); Favaro, Lo studio di Padora e la comp de G. (Venice, 1877). Spain.--Astrain, Hist. de la comp. de J. in asistencia di Espana (Madrid, 1902, 3 vols., in progress); Alcazar, Chronohistoria de la comp de J. en la provincia de la Toledo (Madrid 1710); Prat, Hist du P. Ribedeneyra (Paris 1862). Portugal--Tellez, Chronica de la comp. de J. na provincia de Portugal (Coimbra, 1645-7); Franco, Synop. annal. Soc. Jesu in Lusitania ab anno 1 40 ad 172 (Augsburg, 1726); Teixeira, Docum. para a hist. dos Jesuitas em Portugal (Coimbra, 1899). France.--Fouqueray, Hist de la comp de J. en France (Paris. 1910); Carayon, Docum. ined. concernant la comp. de J. (23 vols., Paris, 1863-86); Idem, Les parlements et les jesuites (Paris, 1867); Prat, mem pour servir a l'hist. du P. Brouet (Puy 1885); Idem, Recherches hist sur la comp. de J. en France du temps du P. Coton, 1564-1627 (Lyons, 1876); Idem, Maldonat et l'universite de Paris (Paris, 1856); Donarche, L'univ de paris et les jesuites (Paris, 1888); Piaget, L'etablissement des jesuites en France 1540-1660 (Leyden, 1893); Chossat, les jesuites et leurs oeuvres a Avignon (Avignon, 1896). Germany, etc,--Agricola (continued by Flotto, Kropf), Hist. prov. Soc. Jesu Germaniae superioris (1540-1641) (5 vols, Augsburg and Munich, 1727-54); Hansen, Rhein. Akten zur Gesch. des Jesuitenordens 1542-82 (1896); Jansen, History of the German People, tr. Christie (London 1905-10); Duhr, Gesch. der Jesuiten in den Landern deutscher Zunge (Freiburg, 1907); Kroess, Gesch der bohmischen Prov. der G. J. (Vienna, 1910); Menderer, Annal. Ingolstadiensis academ. (Ingolstadt, 1782); Reiffenberg, Hist. Soc. Jesu ad Rhenum inferiorum (Cologne, 1764); Argento, De rebus Soc.jesu in regba Poloniae (Cracow, 1620); Pollard, The Jesuits in Poland, (Oxford, 1882); Zalenski, Hist. of the Soc. of Jesus in Poland (in Polish, 1896-1906); Idem, The Jesuits in White Russia (in Polish, 1874; Fr. tr., Paris, 1886); Pierling, Antonii Possevini moscovitica (1883); Rostwoski, Hist. Soc. Jesu prov. Lithuanicarum provincialum (Wilna, 1765); Scmidl, Hist. Soc. Jesu prov. Bohemiae, 1555-1653 (Prague, 1747-59); Socher, Hist. prov. Austriae Soc. Jesu, 1540-1590 (Vienna, 1740); Steinhuber, Gesch. des Coll. Germanicum-Hungaricum (Freiburg, 1895). Belgium.--Manare, De rebus Soc. Jesu commentarius, ed. Delplace (Florence, 1886); Waldack, Hist. prov. Flandro-beligicae Soc. Jesu anni 1638 (Ghent, 1837). England, Ireland, Scotland. Foley, Records of the English Prov. of the Soc. of Jesus--includes Irish and Scottish Jesuits (London, 1877); Spillmann, Die englischen Martyrer unter Elizabeth bis 1583 (Freiburg, 1888), Forbes-Leith, Narr. of Scottish Catholics (Edinburgh, 1885). Idem, Mem. of Soc. Cath. (London, 1909); Hogan, Ibernia Ignatiana (Dublin, 1880); Idem, Distinguished Irishmen of the XVI century (London, 1894) Meyer, England und die kath. Kirke unter Elizabeth (Rome, 1910); More, Hist. prov. Anglicanae (St-Omer, 1660); Persons, Memoirs, ed. Pollen in Cath. Record Society, II (London, 1896, 1897), iii; Pollen, Politics of the Eng. Cath. under Elisabeth in The Month (London, 1902-3; Taunton, The Jesuits in England (London, 1901). J.H. POLLEN Jesuit Apologetic Jesuit Apologetic The accusations brought against the Society have been exceptional for their frequency and fierceness. Many indeed would be too absurd to deserve mention, were they not credited even by cultured and literary people. Such for instance are the charges that the Society was responsible for the Franco-Prussian War, the affaire Dreyfus, the Panama scandal, the assassination of popes, princes, etc. -- statements found in books and periodicals of some pretense. So likewise is the so-called Jesuit oath, a clumsy fabrication of the forger Robert Ware, exposed by Bridget in "Blunders and Forgeries". The fallacy of such accusations may often be detected by general principles. A. Jesuits are fallible Jesuits are fallible, and may have given some occasion to the accuser. The charges laid against them would never have been brought against angels, but they are not in the least inconsistent with the Society being a body of good but fallible men. Sweeping denials here and an injured tone would be misplaced and liable to misconception. As an instance of Jesuit fallibility, one may mention that writings of nearly one hundred Jesuits have been placed on the Roman "Index". Since this involves a reflection on Jesuit book-censors as well, it might appear to be an instance of failure in an important matter. But when we remember that the number of Jesuit writers exceeds 120,000, the proportion of those who have missed the mark cannot be considered extraordinary; the Censure inflicted, moreover, has never been of the graver kind. Many critics of the order, who do not consider the Index censures discreditable, cannot pardon so readily the exaggerated esprit de corps in which Jesuits of limited experience occasionally indulge, especially in controversies or while eulogizing their own confrères; nor can they overlook the narrowness or bias with which some Jesuit writers have criticized men of other lands, institutions, education, though it is unfair to hold up the faults of a few as characteristic of an entire body. B. The Accusers (1) In an oft-recited passage about the martyrs St. Ambrose tells us: "Vere frustra impugnata qui apud impios et infidos impietatis arcessitur cum fidei sit magister" (He in truth is accused in vain of impiety by the impious and the faithless, though he is a teacher of the faith). The personal equation of the accuser is a correction of great moment; nevertheless it is to be applied with equally great caution; on no other point is an accused person so liable to make mistakes. Undoubtedly, however, when we find a learned man like Harnack declaring roundly (but without proofs) that Jesuits are not historians, we may place this statement of his besides another of his professional dicta, that the Bible is not history. If the same principles underlie both propositions, the accusation against the order will carry little weight. When an infidel government, about to assail the liberties of the Church, begins by expelling the Jesuits, on the accusation that they destroy the love of freedom in their scholars, we can only say that no words of theirs can counterbalance the logic of their acts. Early in this century, the French Government urged as one of their reasons for suppressing all the religious orders in France, among them the Society, that the regulars were crowding the secular clergy out of their proper spheres of activity and influence. No sooner were the religious suppressed that the law separating Church and State was passed to cripple and enslave the bishops and secular clergy. (2) Again it is little wonder that heretics in general, and those in particular who impugn church liberties and the authority of the Holy See, should be ever ready to assail the Jesuits, who are forever bound to the defence of that see. It seems stranger that the opponents of the Society should sometimes be within the Church. Yet it is almost inevitable that such opposition should at times occur. No matter how adequately the canon law regulating the relations of regulars with the hierarchy and clergy generally may provide for their peaceful co-operation in missionary, educational and charitable enterprises, there will necessarily be occasion for difference of opinion, disputes over jurisdiction, methods, and similar vital points which in the heat of controversy often embitter and even estrange the parties at variance. Such religious controversies arise between other religious orders and the hierarchy and secular clergy; they are neither common nor permanent, not the rule but the exception, so that they do not warrant the sinister judgment that is sometimes formed of the Society in particular as unable to work with others, jealous of its own influence. Sometimes, especially when trouble of this kind have affected broad questions of doctrine and discipline, the agitation has reached immense proportions, and bitterness has remained for years. The controversies De auxiliis lead to violent explosions of temper, to intrigue, and to furious language that was simply astonishing; and there were others, in England for instance about the faculties of the archpriest, in France about Gallicanism, which were almost equally memorable for fire and fury. Odium theologicum is sure to call forth at all times excitement of unusual keenness, but we may make allowance for the early disputants because of the pugnacious nature of the times. When the age quite approved of gentlemen killing each other in duels on very slight provocation, there can be little wonder that clerics, when aroused, should forget propriety and self-restraint, sharpen their pen like daggers, and, dipping them in gall, strike at any sensitive point of their adversaries which they could injure. Charges put about by such excited advocates must be received with the greatest caution. (3) The most embittered and the most untrustworthy members of the Society (the are fortunately not very numerous) have ever been deserters from its own ranks. We know with what malice and venom some unfaithful priests are wont to assail the Church, which they once believed to be Divine, and not dissimilar has been the hatred of some Jesuits who have been untrue to their calling. C. Proximity to Christ always invites attacks What is to be expected? The Society has certainly had some share in the beatitude of suffering for persecutions sake; though it is not true, however, to say that the society is the object of universal detestation. Prominent politicians, who acts affect the interest of millions, are much more hotly and violently criticized, are much more freely denounced, caricatured, and condemned in the course of a month, than the Jesuits singly or collectively in a year. When once the politician is overthrown, the world turns its fire upon the new holder of power, and it forgets the man that is fallen. But the light attacks against the Society never cease for long, and their cumulative effects look more serious than it should, because people forget the long spans of years which in its case intervene between the different signal assaults. Another principle to remember is that the enemies of the Church would never assail the Society at all, were it not that it is conspicuously popular with large classes of the Catholic community. Neither universal odium therefore, nor freedom from all assault, should be expected, but charges which, by exaggeration, inversion, satire, or irony, somehow correspond to the place of the Society in the Church. Not being contemplatives like the monks of old, Jesuits are not decried as being lazy and useless. Not being called to fill posts of high authority, or to rule, like popes and bishops, Jesuits are not seriously denounced as tyrants, or maligned for nepotism and similar misdeeds. Ignatius described his order as a flying squadron ready for service anywhere, especially as educators and missionaries. The principal charges against the Society are misrepresentations of these qualities. If they are ready for service in any part of the world, they are called busybodies, mischief-makers, politicians with no attachment to country. If they do not rule, at least they must be gasping, ambitious, scheming, and wont to lower standards of morality, at least to gain control of consciences. If they are good disciplinarians, it will be said that it is by espionage and suppression of individuality and independence. If they are popular as schoolmasters, it will be said that they are good for children, good perhaps as crammers, but bad educators, without influence. If they are favorite confessors, their success with be subscribed to their lax moral doctrines, to their casuistry, and above all to their use of the maxim which is supposed to justify any and every evil act:"the end justifies the means". This perhaps is the most salient instance of the ignorance and ill-will of their accusers. Their books are open to all the world. Time and again those who impute to them as a body, or to any of their publications, the use of this maxim to justify evil of any sort, have been asked to cite one instance of the usage, but all to no purpose. The signal failure of Hoensbroech to establish before the civil courts of Trier and Cologne (30 July, 1905) any such example of Jesuit teaching, should silence this and similar accusations forever. D. The Jesuit Legend It is curious that at the present day, even literary men have next to no interest in the objective facts concerning the Society, not even in those supposed to be to its disadvantage. All attention is fixed to the Jesuit legend; encyclopedia articles and general histories hardly concern themselves with anything else. The legend, though it reached its present form in the middle of the nineteenth century, began at a much earlier period. The early persecutions of the Society (which counted some 100 martyrs in Europe during its first century) were backed up by fiery, loud, unscrupulous writers such as Hassenmueller and Hospinian, who diligently collected and defended all the charges against the Jesuits. The rude, criminous ideas which these writers set forth received subtler traits of deceitfulness and double-dealing through Zahorowski's "Monita Secreta Societatis Jesu" (Cracow, 1614), a satire misrepresenting the rule of the order, which is freely believed to be genuine by credulous adversaries (see Monita Secreta). The current version of the legend is late French, evolved during the long revolutionary ferment which preceded the Third Empire. It began with the denunciations of Montlosier (1824-27), and grew strong (1833-45) in the University of Paris, which affected to consider itself as the representative of the Gallican Sourbonne, of Port-Royal, and of the Encyclopédie. The occasion for literary hostilities was offered by attempts at University reform which, so Liberals affected to believe, were instigated by Jesuits. Hereupon the "Provinciales" were given a place in the University curriculum, and Villemain, Theirs, Cousin. Michelet, Quinlet, Libri, Mignet, and other respectable scholars succeeded by their writings and denunciations in giving to anti-Jesuitism a sort of literary vogue, not always with scrupulous observance of accuracy or fairness. More harmful still to the order were the plays, the songs, the popular novels against them. Of these the most celebrated was Eugène Sue's "Juif errant" (Wandering Jew) (1844), which soon became the most popular anti-Jesuit book ever printed, and has done more than anything else to give final form to the Jesuit legend. The special character of this fable is that it has hardly anything to do with the order at all, its traits being simply copied from masonry. The previous Jesuit bogey was at least one which haunted churches and colleges, and worked through the confessional and the pulpit. But this creation of modern fiction has lost all connection with reality. He (or even she) is a person, not necessarily a priest, under the command of a black pope who lives in an imaginary world of back stairs, closets, and dark passages. He is busy with plotting and scheming, mesmerizing the weak and corrupting the honest, occupations diversified by secret crimes or melodramatic attempts at crimes of every sort. The ideal we see is taken over bodily from the real, or the supposed method of the life of the Continental mason. Yet this is the sort of nonsense about which special correspondents send telegrams to the papers, about which revolutionary agitators and crafty politicians make long inflammatory speeches, which standard works of reference discuss quite gravely, which none of our popular writers dares to expose as an imposture (see Brou, op cit. infra, II, 199-247). E. Some Modern Objections (1) Without having given up the old historical objections (for the study of which the historical sections of this article may be consulted), the anti-Jesuits of today arraign a Society as out of touch with the modern Zeitgeist, as hostile to liberty and culture, and as being a failure. Liberty, next to intelligence (and some people put it before), is the noblest of man's endowments. Its enemies are the enemies of the human race. Yet it is said that Ignatius' system, by aiming at "blind obedience", paralyzes the judgment and by consequence scoops out the will, inserting the will of the superior in its place, as a watchmaker might replace one mainspring with another (cf. Encyc. Brit., 1911, XV, 342); perinde ac cadaver, "like a corpse", again, "similar to an old man's staff" -- therefore dead and listless, similar to mere machines, incapable of individual distinction (Bohmer-Monod, op. cit. infra, p. lxxvi). The cleverness of this objection lies in its bold inversion of certain plain truths. In reality, no one loved liberty better or provided for it more carefully than Ignatius. But he upheld the deeper principle that true freedom lies in obeying reason, all other choice being license. Those who hold themselves free to disobey even the laws of God, who declare all rule in the Church a tyranny, and who aim at so-called free love, free divorce, and free thought -- they, of course, reject his theory. In practice his custom was to train the will so thoroughly that his men might be able after a short time to "level up" others (a most difficult thing), even though they lived outside the cloisters, with no external support for their discipline. The wonderful achievements of staying and rolling back the tide of the Reformation, in so far as it was due to the Jesuits, was the result of increased will-power given to previously irresolute Catholics by the Ignatian methods. As to "blind" obedience, we should note that all obedience must be blind to some extent -- "Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do and die." Ignatius borrowed from earlier ascetic writings the strong metaphors of "the blind man", "the corpse", "the old man's staff", to illustrate the nature of obedience in a vivid way; but he does not want those metaphors to be run to death. Not only does he want the subject to bring both head and heart to the execution of the command, but knowing human nature and its foibles, he recognizes that causes will arise when the superior's order may appear impracticable, unreasonable, or unrighteous to a free subject and may possibly really be so. In such cases it is the acknowledged duty of the subject to appeal, and his judgment as well as his conscience, even when it may happen to be ill-formed is to be respected; provision is made in the Constitutions for the clearing up of such troubles by discussion and arbitration, a provision which would be inconceivable, unless a mind and a free will, independent of and possibly opposed to that of the superior, were recognized and respected. Ignatius expects his subjects to be "dead" or "blind" only in respect of sloth, of passion, of self-interest and self-indulgence, which would impede the ready execution of orders. So far is he from desiring a mechanical performance that he explicit disparages "obedience, which executes in work only". as "Unworthy of the name of virtue" and warmly urges that "bending to, with all forces of head and heart, we should carry out the commands quickly and completely" (Letter on Obedience, sect. 5, 14). Further illustration of the Ignatian love of liberty may be found in the Spiritual Exercises, and in the character of certain theological doctrines, as Probabilism and Molinism (with its subsequent modifications) which are commonly taught in the Society's schools. Thus, Molinism "is above all determined to throw a wall of security around free will" (see Grace, Controversies on) and Probabilism (q.v.) teaches that liberty may not be restrained unless the restraining force rests on a basis of certainty.The characteristics of both theories is to emphasize the sacredness of free will somewhat more than is done in other systems. The Spiritual Exercises, the secret of Ignatius's success, are a series of considerations arranged, as he tells the exercitant from the first, to enable him to make a choice or election on the highest principals and without fear of consequences. Again the priest, who explains the meditations, is warned to be most careful not to incline the exercitant more to one object of choice than to another (Annot. 15). It is notoriously impossible to expect that anti-Jesuit writers of our day should face their subject in a common-sense or scientific manner. If they did, one would point out that the only rational manner of inquiring into the subject would be to approach the persons under discussion (who are after all very approachable), and to see if they are characterless, as they are reported to be. Another easy test would be to turn to the lives of their great missionaries, Brebeuf, Marquette, Silveira, etc. Any men more unlike "mere machines" it would be impossible to conceive. The Society's successes in education confirm the same conclusion. It is true that lately, as a preparatory measure to closing its schools by violence, the French anti-Jesuits asserted both in print and in the Chamber that Jesuit education produces mere pawns, spiritless, unenterprising nonentities. But the real reason was notoriously that the students of the Jesuit schools were exceptionally successful at the examinations for entrance as officers into the army, and proved themselves the bravest and most vigorous men of the nation. In a controverted matter like this, the most obvious proof that the Society's education fits its pupils for the battle of life in found in the constant readiness of parents to entrust their children to the Jesuits even when, from a merely worldly point of view, there seems to be many reasons for holding back. (A discussion of this matter, from a French standpoint, will be found in Brou, op cit infra, II, 409; Tampe in "Etudes", Paris, 1900, pp. 77, 749.) It is hardly necessary to add that methods of school discipline will naturally differ greatly in different countries. The Society would certainly prefer to observe, mutatis mutandis, its well-tried Ratio Studiorum; but it is far from thinking that local customs (as for instance those with regard to surveillance) and external discipline should everywhere be uniform. (2) Another objection akin to the supposed hostility to freedom is the supposed Kulturfeindlichkeit, hostility to what is cultured and intellectual. This cry has been chiefly raised by those who reject Catholic theology as dogmatism, who scoff at Catholic philosophy as Scholastic, and at the Church's insistence on Biblical inspiration as retrograde and unscholarly. Such men make little account of work for the ignorant and the poor, whether at home or on the missions, they speak of evangelical poverty, of practices of penance and of mortification, as if they were debasing and retrograde. They compare their numerous and richly endowed universities with the few and relatively poor seminaries of the Catholic and the Jesuit, and their advances in a multitude of sciences with the intellectual timidity (as they think it) of those whose highest ambition it is not to go beyond the limits of theological orthodoxy. The Jesuits, they say, are the leaders of the Kulturfeindliche; their great object is to bolster up antiquated traditions. They have produce no geniuses, while men whom they have trained, and who broke loose from their teaching, Pascal, Descartes, Voltaire, have powerfully affected the philosophical and religious beliefs of large masses of mankind; but respectable mediocrity is the brand on the long list of the Jesuit names in the catalogs of Alegambe and de Backer. Under Bismarck and M. Waldeck-Rousseau arguments of this sort were accompanied by decrees of banishment and confiscation of goods. This objection springs chiefly from prejudice -- religious, worldly, or national. The Catholic will think rather better than worse of men who are decried and persecuted on the grounds which apply to the whole Church. It is true that the modern Jesuit's school is often smaller and poorer than the establishment of his rival, who at times is ensconced in the academy which the Jesuits of previous times succeeded in founding and endowing. It is not to be questioned that the sum total of learned institutions in the hands of non-Catholics is greater than that in the hands of our co-religionists, but the love of culture surely is not extinguished in the exiled French, German, or Portuguese Jesuit. robbed perhaps of all he possesses, at once settles down to his task of study, of writing, or of education. Very rare are the cases where Jesuits, living among enterprising people, have acquiesced in educational inferiority. For superiority to others, even in sacred learning, the Society does not and should not contend. In their own line, that is in Catholic theology, philosophy, and exegesis, they would hope that they are not inferior to the level of their generation, and that, far from acquiescing in intellectual inferiority, they aim at making their schools as good as circumstances allow them. They may also claim to have trained many good scholars in almost every science. The objection that Jesuit teachers do not influence masses of mankind, while men like Descartes and Voltaire, after breaking with Jesuit education, have done so, derives its force from passing over the main work of the Jesuits, which is the salvation of souls, and any lawful means that helps to this end, as, for instance, the maintenance of orthodoxy. It is easy to overlook this, and those who object will probably despise it, even if they recognize it. The work is not showy, whereas that of the satirist, the iconoclast, and free-lance compels attention. Avoiding comparisons, it is safe to say that the Jesuits have done much to maintain the teaching of orthodoxy, and that the orthodox far outnumber the followers of men like Voltaire and Descartes. It would be impossible, from the nature of the case, to devise any satisfactory test to show what love of culture, especially intellectual culture, there was in a body so diverse and scattered as the Society. Many might be applied, and one of the most telling is the regularity with which every test reveals refinement and studiousness somewhere in its ranks, even in poor and distant foreign missions. To some it will seem significant that the pope, while searching for theologians and consultors for various Roman colleges and congregations, should so frequently select Jesuits, a relatively small body, some thirty or forty percent of whose members are employed in foreign missions or among the poor of our great towns. The periodicals edited by the Jesuits, of which a list is given below, afford another indication of culture, and a favorable one, those it is to be remembered that these publications are written chiefly with a view of popularizing knowledge. The more serious and learned books must be studied separately. The most striking test of all is that offered by the great Jesuit bibliography of Father Sommervogel, showing over 120,000 writers, and an almost endless list of books, pamphlets, and editions. There is no other body in the world which can point to such a monument. Cavillers may say that the brand-mark is "respectable mediocrity"; even so, the value of the whole will be very remarkable, and we may be sure that less prejudiced and therefore better judges will form a higher appreciation. Masterpieces, too, in every field of ecclesiastical learning and in several secular branches are not rare. The statement that the Society has produced few geniuses is not impressive in the mouths of those who have not studied, or unable to study or to judge, the writers under discussion. Again the objection, whatever its worth, confuses two ideals. Educational bodies must necessarily train by classes and schools and produce men formed on definite lines. Genius on the other hand is independent of training and does not conform to type. It is unreasonable to reproach a missionary for educational system for not possessing advantages which no system can offer. Then it is well to bear in mind that genius is not restricted to writers or scholars alone. There is a genius of organization, exploration, enterprise, diplomacy, evangelization, and instances of it, in one or other of these directions, are common enough in the Society. Men will vary of course in their estimates as to whether the amount of Jesuit genius is great or not according to the esteem they make of these studies in which the Society is strongest. But whether the amount is great or little, it is not stunted by Ignatius's strivings for uniformity. The objection taken to the words of the rule, "Let all say the same thing as much as possible" is not convincing. This is a clipped quotation, for Ignatius goes on to add, "juxta Apostolum", an evidence reference to St. Paul to the Phillipians, iii, 15, 16, beyond whom he does not go. In truth, Ignatius's object is the practical one of preventing zealous professors from wasting their lecture time disputing small points on which they may differ from their colleagues. The Society's writers and teachers are never compelled to the same rigid acceptance of the views of another as is often the case elsewhere, e.g., in politics, diplomacy, or journalism. Members of a staff of leader-writers have constantly to personate convictions, not really their own at the bidding of the editor; whereas as Jesuit writers and teachers write and speak almost invariably in their own names, and with a variety of treatment and a freedom of mind which compare not unfavorably with other exponents of the same subjects. (3) Failure The Society never became "relaxed" or needed a "reform" in the technical sense in which these terms are applied to religious orders. The constant intercourse which is maintained between all parts enables the general to find out very soon when anything goes wrong, and his large powers of appointing new officials has always sufficed to maintain a high standard of both disciple and of religious virtue. Of course, there have arisen critics, who have reversed this generally acknowledged fact. It has been said that + failure has become a note of Jesuit enterprises. Other religious and learned institutions endure for century after century. The Society has hardly a house that is a hundred years old, very few that are not quite modern. Its great missionary glories, Japan, Paraguay, China, etc., passed like smoke, and even now, in countries predominantly Catholic, it is banished and its works ruined, while other Catholics escape and endure. Again, that + after Acquaviva's time, a period of decay ensued; + disputes about Probabilism, tyrannicide, equivocation. etc., caused a strong and steady decline in the order; + the Society after Acquaviva's time began to acquire enormous wealth and the professed lived in luxury; + religious energy was enervated by political scheming and by internal dissensions. (a) The word "failure" here is taken in two different ways -- failure from internal decay and failure from external violence. The former is discreditable, the later may be glorious, if the cause is good. Whether the failures of the Society, at its Suppression, and in the violent ejection from various lands even in our own time were discreditable failures is a historical question treated elsewhere. If they were, then we must say that such failures tend to the credit of the order, that they are apparent rather than real, and that God's Providence will, in His own way, make good the loss. In effect we see the Society frequently suffering, but as frequently recovering and renewing her youth. It would be inexact to say that the persecutions which the Society has suffered have been so great and continuous as to be irreconcilable with the usual course of Providence, which is wont to temper trial with relief, to make endurance possible (I Cor., x, 13). Thus, while it may be truly said that many Jesuit communities have been forced to break up within the last thirty years, others have had a corporate existence of two or three years. Stonyhurst College, for instance, has only been 116 years at its present site, but its corporate life in 202 years older still; yet the most glorious pages of its history are those of its persecutions, when it lost, three tomes over, everything it possessed, and, barely escaping by flight, renewed a life even more honorable and distinguished than that which preceded, a fortune probably without its equal in the history of pedagogy. Again the Bollandists (q.v.) and the Collegio Romano may be cited as well-known examples of institutions which, though once smitten to the ground, have afterwards revived and flourished as much as before, if not more. One might instance, too, the German province which, though driven into exile by Bismark, has there more than doubled its previous numbers. The Christianity which the Jesuits planted in Paraguay survived in a wonderful way, after they were gone, and the rediscovery of the Church in Japan affords a glorious testimony to the thoroughness of the old missionary methods. (b) Turning to the point of decadence after Acquaviva's time, we may freely concede that no subsequent generation contained so many great personalities as the first. The first fifty years say nearly all the Society's saints and a large proportion of its great writers and missionaries. But the same phenomenon is to be observed in almost all orders, indeed in most other human institutions either sacred or profane. As for internal dissensions after Acquaviva's death, truth is that the severe troubles occurred before, not after it. The reason for this is easily understood. Internal troubles came chiefly with the conflict of views which was inevitable while the Constitutions, the rules, and general traditions of the body were being moulded. This took till near the end of Acquaviva's generalate. The worst trouble came first, under Ignatius himself in regards to Portugal, as has been explained elsewhere (see Ignatius Loyola). The trouble of Acquaviva with Spain come next in seriousness. (c) After Acquaviva's time indeed we find some warm theological disputations on Probabilism and other points; but in truth this trouble and the debates on tyrannicide and equivocation had much more to do with outside controversies than with internal division. After they had been fully argued and resolved by papal authority, the settlement was accepted throughout the Society without any trouble. (d) The allegation that the Jesuits were ever immensely rich is demonstrably a fable. It would seem to have arisen from the vulgar prepossession that all those who live in great houses or churches must be very rich. The allegation was exploited as early as 1594 by Antoine Arnauld, who declared that the French Jesuits had a revenue of 200,000 livres (50,000 pounds, which might be multiplied by six to get the relative buying power of that day). The Jesuits answered that their twenty-five colleges and churches have a staff of 500 to 600 persons, had in all only 60,000 livres (15,000 pounds). The exact annual revenues of the English province for some 120 years are published by Foley (Records S.J., VII, Introd., 139). Duhr (Jesuitenfabeln, 1904, 606, etc.) gives many figures of the same kind. We can therefore, tell now that the college revenues were, for their purposes, very moderate. The rumors of immense wealth acquired still further vogue through two occurrences, the Restitutionsedikt of 1629, and the license, sometimes given by papal authority, for the procurators of the foreign missions to include in the sale of the produce of their own mission farms the produce of their native converts, who were generally too rude and childish to make bargains for themselves. The Restitutionsedikt, as has been already explained (see above, Germany), led to no permanent results, but the sale of the mission produce came conspicuously before the notice of the public at the time of the Suppression, by the failure of Father La Valette (see, in article above, Suppression, France). In neither case did the money transactions, such as they were, affect the standard of living in the Society itself, which always remained that of the honesti sacerdotes of their time (see Duhr, op. cit. infra, pp. 582-652). During the closing months of 1751 many other prelates wrote to the king, to the chancellor, M. de Lamoignon, protesting against the arrêt of the Parlement, 6 August, 1761, and testifying to their sense of the injustice of the accusations made against the Jesuits, and of the loss which their diocese would sustain by their suppression. De Ravignan gives the name of twenty-seven such bishops. Of the minority, five out of the six rendered a collective answer, approving of the conduct and the teaching of the Jesuits. These five bishops, the Cardinal de Choiseul, brother of the statesman, Mgr de La Rochefoucald, the Archbishop of Rouen, and Mgrs Quiseau of Nevers, Choiseul-Beaupré of Châlons, and Champion de Cice of Auxerre, declared that "the confidence reposed in the Jesuits by the bishops of the kingdom, all of whom approve them in their diocese, is evidence that they are all found useful in France", and that in consequence, they, the writers, "supplicate the king to grant his royal protection and keep for the Church of France a Society commendable for the service it renders to the Church and state and which the vigilance of the bishops may be trusted to preserve free from the evils which it is feared might come to affect it". To the second and third of the king's questions they answer that occasionally individual Jesuits have taught blameworthy doctrines or invaded the jurisdiction of the bishops, but that neither fault has been general enough to affect the body as a whole. To the fourth question they answer that "the authority of the general, as is wont to be and should be exercised in France appears to need no modification; nor do they see anything objectionable in the Jesuit vows". In fact, the only point on which they differ from the majority is on the suggestion that "to take away all difficulties for the future it would be well to solicit the Holy See to issue a Brief fixing precisely those limits to the exercise of the general's authority in France which the maxims of the kingdom require". Testimonies like these might be multiplied indefinitely. Among them, one of the most significant is that of Clement XIII, dated 7 January, 1765, which specially mentions the cordial relations of the Society with bishops throughout the world, precisely when enemies were plotting for the suppression of the order. In his books on Clement XIII and Clement XIV, de Ravignan records the acts and letters of many bishops in favor of the Jesuits, enumerating the names of nearly 200 bishops in every part of the world. From a secular source the most noteworthy testimony is that of the French bishops when hostility to the Society is rampant in high places. On 15 November, 1761, the Comte de Florentin, the minister of the royal household, bade Cardinal de Luynes, the Archbishop of Sens, to convoke the bishops then at Paris to investigate the following points: + The use which the Jesuits can be in France, and the advantages or evils which might be expected to attend their discharge of the different functions committed to them. + The manner in which in their teaching and practice the Jesuits conduct themselves in regard to opinions dangerous to the personal safety of sovereigns, to the doctrine of the French clergy contained in the Declaration of 1782, and in regard to the Ultramontane opinions generally. + The conduct of the Jesuits in regard to the subordination due to bishops and ecclesiastical superiors, and as to whether they do not infringe on the rights and functions of the parish priests. + What restriction can be placed on the authority of the General of the Jesuits, so far as it is exercised in France. For eliciting the judgment of the ecclesiastics of the kingdom on the action of the Parlement, no questions could be more suitable, and the bishops convoked (three cardinals, nine archbishops, and thirty-nine bishops, that is, fifty-one in all) met together to consider them on 30 November. They appointed a commission consisting of twelve of their number, who were given a month for their task, and reported duly on 30 December, 1761. Of these fifty-one bishops, forty-four addressed a letter to the king, dated 30 December, 1761, answering all the four questions in a sense favorable to the Society, and giving under each head a clear statement of their reasons. To the first question the bishops reply that the "Institute of the Jesuits . . . is conspicuously consecrated to the good of religion and the profit of the State". They began by noting how a succession of popes, St. Charles Borromeo, and the ambassadors of princes, who with him were present at the Council of Trent, together with the Fathers of that Council in their collective capacity, had pronounced in favor of the Society, after an experience of the services it could render; how, though, in the first instance, there was a prejudice against it in France, on account of certain novelties in its constitutions, the sovereign, bishops, clergy, and people had, on coming to know, became firmly attached to it, as was witnessed by the demand of the States-General in 1614 and 1615, and of the Assembly of the Clergy in 1617, both of which bodies wished for Jesuit colleges in Paris and the provinces as "the best means adapted to plant religion and faith in the hearts of the people". They referred also to the language of many letters-patent by which the kings of France had authorized various Jesuit colleges, particularly that of Claremont, at Paris, which Louis XIV had wished should bear his own name, and which had come to be known as the College of Louis-le-Grand. Then, coming to their own personal; experience, they bear witness that "the Jesuits are very useful for our diocese, for preaching, for the guidance of souls, for implanting, preserving, and renewing faith and piety, by their missions, congregations, retreats which they carry on with our approbation and under our authority". Whence they conclude that "it would be difficult to replace them without a loss, especially in the provincial towns, where there is no university". To the second question the bishops reply that, if there were any reality in the accusation that the Jesuit teaching was a menace to the lives of sovereigns, the bishops would have long since taken measures to restrain it, instead of trusting the Society with the most important functions of sacred ministry. they also indicate the source from which this and similar accusations against the Society had their origin. "The Calvinists", they say. "tried in their utmost to destroy in its cradle, a Society whose principal object was to combat their errors . . . and disseminated many publications in which they singled out the Jesuits as professing a doctrine which menaced the lives of sovereigns, because to accuse them of a crime so capital was the surest means to destroy them; and the prejudices against them thus aroused had ever since been seized upon greedily by all who had any interested motives for objecting to the Society's existence (in the country)." The bishops add that the charges against the Jesuits which were being made at that time in so many writings in which the country was flooded were but rehashes of what had been spoken and written against them throughout the preceding century and a half. To the third question they reply that the Jesuits have no doubt received numerous privileges from the Holy See. most of which, however, and those the most extensive, have accrued to them by communication with the other orders to which they had been primarily granted; but that the Society had been accustomed to use its privileges with moderation and prudence. The fourth and last of the questions is not pertinent here, and we omit the answer. The Archbishop of Paris, who was one of the assembled bishops, but on some ground of precedent preferred not to sign the majority statement, endorsed it in a separate letter which he addressed to the king. (e) It is not to be denied that, as the Society acquired reputation and influence even in the Courts of powerful kings, certain domestic troubles arose, which had not been heard of before. Some jealousies were inevitable, and some losses of friendship; there was danger too of the faults of the court communicating themselves to those who frequented it. But it is equally clear that the Society was keenly on its guard in this matter, and it would seem that its precautions were successful. Religious observance did not suffer to any appreciable extent. But few people of the seventeenth century, if any, noticed the grave dangers that were coming from absolute government, the decay of energy, the diminished desire for progress. The Society like the rest of Europe suffered under these influences, but they were plainly external, not internal. In France, the injurious influence of Gallicanism must also be admitted (see above, France). But even in this dull period we find the French Jesuits in the new mission-field of Canada showing a fervor worthy of the highest traditions of the order. The final and most convincing proof that there was nothing seriously wrong in the poverty or in the discipline of the Society up to the time of its Suppression is offered by the inability of its enemies to substantiate their charges when, after the Suppression, all the accounts and the papers of the Society passed bodily into the adversaries' possession. What an unrivaled opportunity for proving to the world those allegations which with hitherto unsupported! Yet, after a careful scrutiny of the papers, no such attempt was made. No serious faults could be proved. Neither at the middle of the eighteenth century nor at any previous time was there any internal decline of the Society; there was no loss of numbers, but on the contrary a steady growth; there was no falling off of learning, morality, zeal. From 1000 members in 12 provinces in 1656, it had grown to 13,112 in 27 provinces in 1615; to 17,665 in 1680, 7890 of whom were priests, in 35 provinces with 48 novitiates, 28 professed houses, 88 seminaries, 578 colleges, 160 residences and 106 foreign missions; and in spite of every obstacle, persecution, expulsion, during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, in 1749 it numbered 22,589 members, of whom 11,293 were priests, in 41 provinces, with 61 novitiates, 24 professed houses, 176 seminaries, 669 colleges, 335 residences, 1542 churches, and 273 foreign missions, That there was no falling off in learning, morality, or zeal historians generally, whether hostile or friendly to the Society, attest (see Maynard, "The Jesuits, their Studies and their Teaching"). On this point the testimony of Benedict XIV will surely be accepted as incontrovertible. In a letter dated 24 April, 1748, he says that the Society is one "whose religious are everywhere reputed to be in the good odour of Christ, chiefly because, in order to advance the young men who frequent their churches and schools in pursuit of liberal knowledge, leaning, and culture, as well as in deeds and habits of the Christian religion and piety, they zealously exert every effort greatly to the advantage of the young". In another bearing the same date he says: It is a universal conviction confirmed by pontifical declaration [Urban VIII, 6 August, 1623] that as the Almighty God raised up other holy men at other times, so he has raised up St. Ignatius and the Society established by him to oppose Luther and the heretics of his day; and the religious sons of this Society, following the luminous way of so great a parent, continue to give an unfailing example of the religious virtues and a distinguished proficiency in every kind of learning, more especially in sacred, so that, as their cooperation is a great service in the successful conduct of the most important affairs of the Catholic Church, in the restoration of morality, and in the liberal culture of young men, they merit new proofs of Apostolic favour. In the paragraph following he speaks of the Society as "most deserving of the orthodox religion". and further on he says: "It abounds in men skilled in every branch of learning." On 27 September, 1748, he commended the General of the Society and its members for their strenuous and faithful labours in sowing and propagating throughout the whole world Catholic faith and unity, as well as Catholic doctrine and piety, in all their integrity and sanctity". On 15 July, 1749, he speaks of the members of the Society as "men who by their assiduous labour strive to instruct and form all the faithful of both sexes in every virtue, and in zeal for Christian piety and doctrine". "The Society of Jesus", he wrote on 29 March, 1753, "adhering closely to the splendid lessons and examples set them by their founder, St. Ignatius, devote themselves top this pious work [spiritual exercises] with so much ardor, zeal, charity, attention, vigilance, labour . . .", etc. For the early controversies see the articles Annat, Cerrutti, Forer, Gretzer. Grou, and Reiffenberg in Sommervogel, and the full list of Jesuit apologies, ibid., X, 1501. Bohmer-Monod, Les jesuites (Paris, 1910); Gioberti, Il Gesuita moderno (Lausanne, 1840); Griesinger, Hist. of the Jesuits (London, 1872); Hoenbroech, Vierzehn Jahre Jesuit (Leipzig, 1910); Huber, Der Jesuiten-Orden (Berlin, 1873); Michelet-Quintet, des jesuites (Paris, 1843); Muller, Les origines de la comp. de Jesus (Paris, 1898); Reusch, Beitrage fur Gesch. der jesuiten (Munich, 1894); taunton, Hist. of the Jesuits in England (London, 1901); Theiner, Hist. des institutions chret d'education eccles. (Fr. tr., Cohan, Paris, 1840). Discussions of the above and other hostile writers will be found in the Jesuit periodicals cited above; see also Pilatus (Viktor Naumann), Der Jesuitismus (Ratisbon, 1905), 352-569, a fine criticism, by a Protestant writer, of anti-Jesuitical literature; Briere, L'apologitique de Pascal et la mort de Pascal (Paris, 1911), Brou, Les jesuites de la legende (Paris, 1906); Concerning Jesuits (London, 1902); Duhr, Jesuiten-Fabeln (Freiburg, 1904); Du Lac, Jesuites (Paris, 1901); Maynard, The Studies and Teachings of the Society of Jesus (London, 1855); Les Provinciales et leur refutation (Paris, 1851-2); De Ravignan, De l'existence et de l'institut des jesuites (Paris, 1844), tr. Seager (London 1844); Weiss, Antonio de Escobar y Mendoza (Freiburg, 1911); Reusch, Der Index der verboten Bucher; Dolinger and Reusch, Gesch, des Moralstreitigkeiten; Darrel, A Vindication of St. Ignatius from Phanaticism, and of the Jesuites from the Calumnies laid at their charge (London, 1688); Hughes, Loyola and the Educat. System of the Jesuits (New York, 1892); Pachtler-Duhr, Ratio Studiorum in Mon. Germ. paedagogica (Berline, 1887); Swickerath, Jesuit Education, Its History and Principles in the Light of Modern Educational Problems (St. Louis, 1905). J.H. POLLEN Distinguished Jesuits Distinguished Jesuits Saints: + Ignatius Loyola; + Francis Xavier; + Francis Borgia; + Stanislaus Kostka; + Alfonso Rodriguez; + Juan de Castillo; + John Berchmans; + John Francis Regis; + Peter Claver; + Francis de Geronimo; + Paul Miki, John Goto, James Kisai, Japanese martyrs (1597) + Peter Canisius; + North American Martyrs: Isaac Jogues, Anthony Daniel, John de Brébeuf, Gabriel Lalemant, Charles Garnier, Noel Chabanel (priests), and Rene Goupil and John Lalande (lay missionaries); + Robert Bellarmine, + Andrew Bobola; + John de Britto; + Claude de La Colombière (1641-82), Apostle of the devotion to the Sacred Heart; Blessed Among the blessed are: + Peter Faber; + Anthony Baldinucci; + Bernardo Realini; + The Forty Martyrs of Brazil: o Priests # Ignatius de Azevedo (q.v.) # Didacus de Andrada; o Scholastics: # Antonio Suarez; # Benedictus a Castro; # Francisco Magalhaes; # João Fernandes; # Luiz Correa; # Manoel Rodrigues; # Simon Lopez; # Manoel Fernandes; # Alvaro Mendes; # Pedro Nunhes; # Andreas Goncalves; # Juan a S. Martino; o Novices: # Gonzalvo Henriques; # Didaco Pires; # Ferdinand Sancies; # Francisco Perez Godoi; # Antonio Correa; # Manoel Pacheco; # Nicholas Diniz; # Alexius Delgado; # Marco Caldeira; # Sanjoannes; o Lay brothers: # Manoel Alvares; # Francisco Alvares; # Domingos Fernandez; # Gaspar Alvares; # Amarus Vaz; # Juan de Majorga; # Alfonso de Vaena; # Antonio Fernandes; # Stefano Zuriare; # Pedro Fontoura; # Gregorio Scrivano; # Juan de Zafra; # Juan de Baeza; # Blasio Ribeiro; # João Fernandez; # Simon Acosta; + the Japanese martyrs: o Priests: # John Baptist Machado, 1617; # Sebatian Chimura, 1622; # Camillo Costanzo, 1622; # Paul Navarro, 1622; # Jerome de Angelis, 1623; # Didacus Carvalho, 1624; # Michael Carvalho, 1624; # Francisco Pacheco and his companions Baltasar de Torres and Giovanni Battista Zola, 1626; # Thomas Tzugi. 1627; # Anthony Ixida, 1632; o Scholastics: # Augustine Ota, 1622; # Gonzalvus Fusai and his companions, Anthony Chiuni, Peter Sampo, Michael Xumpò Louis Cavara, John Chingocu, Thomas Acafoxi, 1622; # Denis Fugixima and Peter Onizuchi (companions of Bl. Paul Navarro), 1622; # Simon Jempo (companion of Bl. Jerome de Angelis), 1623; # Vincent Caun and his companions; # Peter Rinxei, Paul Chinsuche, John Chinsaco; Michael Tozò 1626; # Michael Nacaxima, 1628; o Lay brothers: # Leonard Chimura, 1619; # Ambrosio Fernandes, 1620; # Gaspar Sandamatzu (companion of Bl. Francis Pacheco, 1626); + the English martyrs: o Thomas Woodhouse, 1573; o John Nelson, o Edmund Campion, o Alexander Briant; o Thomas Cottam, 1582; + the martyrs of Cuncolim (q.v.): o Priests: # Rudolph Acquaviva; # Alfonso Pacheco; # Pietro Berno; # Antonio Francisco; o Lay brother: # Francisco Aranha, 1583; + the Hungarian martyrs: o Melchior Grodecz and Stephen Pongracz, 7 September, 1619. Venerables The venerable include, besides those whose biographies have been given separately (see the Index), Nicholas Lancicus (1574-1653), author of "Gloria Ignatiana" and many spiritual works, and with Orlandini, of "Historia Societatis Jesu"; Julien Maunoir (1606-83), Apostle of Brittany. Cardinals Though the Jesuits, in accordance with their rules, do not accept ecclesiastical dignities, the popes at times have raised some of their number to the rank of cardinal, as Cardinals Bellarmine, Franzelin, de Lugo, Mai, Mazzella, Odescalchi, Pallaviocino, Pázmány, Tarquini, Toledo, Tolomei, (qq.v.); also Cardinals Casimir V, King of Poland, created 1647; Alvaro Cienfuegos (1657-1739), created 1720; Johann Eberhardt Nidhard (1607-81), created 1675; Giambattista Salerno (1670-1729), created 1709; Andreas Steinhuber (1825-1907), created 1893; and Louis Billot (b. 1846) created 27 November, 1911. As reference is made in most of the articles on members of the Society to Sommervogel's monumental "Bibliotheque de la Compagnie de Jésus" a brief account of its author is given here. Carlos, fourth son of Marie-Maximillian-Joseph Sommervogel and Hortense Blanchard, was born on 8 Jan, 1834, at Strasburg, Alsace, and died in Paris on 4 March, 1902. After studying at the lycée of Strasburg, Carlos entered the Jesuit novitiate at Issenheim, Alsace, 2 Feb., 1853, and was sent later to Saint-Acheul, Amiens, to complete his literary studies. In 1856, he was appointed assistant prefect of discipline and sub-librarian in the College of the Immaculate Conception, Rue Vaugirard, Paris. Here he discovered his literary vocation. The "Bibliothèque" of PP. Augustin and Aloys de Backer was then in course of publication, and Sommervogel, noting its occasional errors and omissions, made a systematic examination of the whole work. Four years later, P. Aug. de Backer, seeing his list of addenda and errata, a manuscript of 800 pages, containing over 10,000 entries, obtained leave to make use of it. Sommervogel continued at Rue Vaugirard till 1865, reviewing his course of philosophy meanwhile. He then studied theology at Amiens, where he was ordained in Sept., 1866. From 1867 till 1879 he was one of the staff on the "Etudes", being managing editor from 1871 till 1879. During the Franco-German war he served as chaplain in Faidhebe's army, and was decorated in 1871 with a bronze medal for his self-sacrifice. P. de Backer in the revised edition of his "Bibliotheque" (1869-76) gave Sommervogel's name as co-author, and deservedly, for the vast improvement in the work was in no small measure due to the latter's contributions. From 1880 to 1882 P. Sommervogel was assistant to his father-provincial. Before 1882 he had never had any special opportunity of pursuing his favourite study; all his bibliographical work had been done in his spare moments. In 1884 he published his "Dictionnaire des ouvrages anonymes et psuedonymes publiés par des religieux de la Compagnie de Jésus". In 1885 he was appointed successor to the PP. de Backer and went to Louvain. He determined to recast and enlarge their work and after five years issued the first volume of the first part (Brussels and Paris, 1890); by 1900 the ninth volume had appeared; the tenth, an index of the first nine, which comprised the bibliographic part of the "Bibliothèque" was unfinished at the time of his death but has since been completed by P. Brucker, from which these details have been drawn. P. Sommervogel had intended to compile a second, or historical part of his work, which was to be a revision of Carayon's "Bibliographic historique". He was a man of exemplary virtue, giving freely to all the fruit of his devoted labours, and content to live for years a busy obscure life to which duty called him, until his superiors directed him to devote himself to his favorite study during the last fifteen years of his life. He re-edited a number of works by old writers of the Society and, in addition to his articles in the "Etudes", wrote "Table methodique des Mémoires de Trévoux" (3 vols. Paris, 1885); Moniteur bibliographique de la Comp. de Jesus" (Paris, 1894-1901). Menologies, Biographies.--Alegambe, Mortes illustres et gesta eorum de Soc. Jesu qui in odium fidei necati sunt (Rome, 1657); Idem, Heroes et victims charitatis (Rome, 1658); Drews, Fasti Soc. Jesu (Braunsberg, 1728); Chandlery, Fasti Breviores Soc. Jesu (London, 1910); Guilhermy, Menologe de la comp de J.: Portugal (Paris, 1867); France (Paris, 1892); Italie (Paris, 1893); Germanie (Paris, 1898); Macleod, Menol. for the English assistancy (London); Boero, Menologio (Rome, 1859); Stoger, Historiographie Soc. Jesu (Ratisbon, 1851); Nieremberg, Claros varones de la comp. de J. (Madrid, 1643); Patrignani, Menol. d'alcuni religiosi della comp. di G. (Venice, 1730); Tanner, Soc Jesu apostolorum imitatrix (Prague, 1694); Idem, Soc. Jesu usque ad mortem militans (Prague, 1675); Thoelen, Menol der deutschen Ordensprovinz (Roermond, 1901). Bibliographies of particular persons on a larger scale than can be given here, will be found under the separate articles devoted to them. (See also Index volume.) The best-arranged historical bibliography is that of Carayon, Bibliographie de la compagnie de Jesus (Paris, 1864). See also Southwell, Bibl. scriptorum Soc. Jesu (Rome, 1676); De Backer, Bibliotheque des escriv, de la comp. de Jesus (Liege, 1853); Sommervogel, Bibl des escriv. de la comp. de Jesus (10 vols., Brussels, 1890-1910); Hunter, Nomenclator literarius (Innsbruck, 1892-9); Hamy, Iconography de la comp de Jesus (Paris, 1875); Idem, Galerie illustree de la comp. de J. (8 vols., Paris, 1893). De Uriarte, Catal. rasonado de obras . . . de auctores de la comp. de Jesus (Madrid, 1904). Jesuit Periodicals.--Memoires de Treveuz (Treveuz and Paris, 1701-67, 265 vols.), Table methodique, by Sommervogel (3 vols., Paris, 1864-65); Civilta cattolica (Rome, 1850); Etudes hist., lit., et relig. (Paris 1854); began as Etudes de theol., intermittent, 1880-8; Table generale, 1888-1900 (Paris, 1901); Precis historiques (Brussels, 1852), Tables, 1862-72 (Brussels, 1894), in 1899 it became Missions belges: The Month (London, 1864), Index (1864-1908); Stimmen aus Maria-Laach (Freiburg, 1871), began as Die Encyclika (1864). In connection with this is issued a series of Erganzungshefte. Also Register I, 1871-86; Register II, 1886-99; Studien (Utrecht, 1868); Rev des questions historiques (Brussels, 1877); Przeglad powszechny (General review, Cracow); Zeitsch. fur kath. Theol. (Innsbruck, 1876); Razon y Fe (Madrid, 1901). Besides the above, which deal with topics of all sorts, there are a host of minor periodicals devoted to special subjects; scientific, liturgical, social, college, mission and parochial magazines are more numerous still. The Messenger for the Sacred Heart has editions for many countries and in numerous languages. It is the organ of the Apostleship of Prayer; most of these editions are edited by members of the Society; America (New York, 1909). See also Bollandists; Ratio Studiorum; Retreats; Spiritual Exercises of Saint Ignatius; Theatre.) J.H. POLLEN The Society of the Blessed Sacrament The Society of the Blessed Sacrament A congregation of priests founded by Venerable Pierre-Julien Eymard in Paris, 1 June, 1856. His aim was to create a society whose members should devote themselves exclusively to the worship of the Holy Eucharist. Pius IX approved the society by Briefs of 1856 and 1858 and by a Decree of 3 June, 1863, approved the rule ad decennium. On 8 May, 1895, Leo XIII approved it in perpetuum. The first to join the founder was Père de Cuers, whose example was soon followed by Père Champion. The community prospered, and in 1862 Père Eymard opened a novitiate, which was to consist of priests and lay brothers. The former recite the Divine Office in choir and perform all the other duties of the clergy; the latter share in the principal end of the society -- perpetual adoration, and attend to the various household employments peculiar to their state. The Blessed Sacrament is always exposed for adoration, and the sanctuary never without adorers in surplice, and if a priest, the stole. Every hour at the sound of the signal bell, all the religious kneel and recite a prayer in honour of the Blessed Sacrament and of Our Lady. Since 1856, the following houses have been established: + France -- Paris (1856), Marseilles (1859), Angers, (1861), Saint Maurice (1866), Trevoux (1895), Sarcelles (1898); Belgium-Brussels (1866), Ormeignies (1898), Oostduinkerke (1902), Bassenge (1902), Baronville (1910), Baelen Post Eupen on the Belgian frontier for Germans (1909); + Italy -- Rome (1882), Turin (1901), Castel-Vecchio (1905); + Austria -- Botzen (1896); + Holland -- Baarle-Nassau, now Nijmegen (1902); + Spain -- Tolosa (1907); + Argentina -- Buenos-Ayres (1903); + Chile -- Santiago (1908); + Canada -- Montreal (1890), Terrebonne (1902); + United States -- New York (1900); Suffern, N. Y. (1907). All the houses in France were closed by the Government in 1900 but Perpetual Adoration is still held in their chapel in Paris, which is in charge of the secular clergy, by the members of "The People's Eucharistic League". The first foundation in the United States took place in 1900, under the leadership of Père Estevenon, the present superior-general, in New York City, where the Fathers were received in the Canadian parish of Saint-Jean-Baptiste, 185 East 76th Street. A new church is under construction. In September, 1904, the Fathers of the Blessed Sacrament opened a preparatory seminary at Suffern, Rockland Co., N. Y. Here young boys who give evidence of a vocation are trained to the religious life, while pursuing a course of secular study. From the seminary the youths pass to the novitiate, where, after two years, they make the three vows of religion, and then enter upon their first theological course preparatory to ordination. From every house of the Fathers of the Blessed Sacrament emanates a series of Eucharistic works, all instituted by their founder. They are: "The Eucharistic Weeks, or, Lights and Flowers", a society whose members devote themselves to the proper adornment of the altar; "The People's Eucharistic League", which numbers over 500,000; "The Priests' Eucharistic League", with a membership of 100,000; "The Priests' Communion League" an association of priests under the title of "Sacerdotal Eucharistic League", established at Rome in the church of San Claudio, July, 1906, and at once raised by Pius X to the dignity of an archconfraternity. Its object is to spread the practice of frequent and daily Communion, in conformity with the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, "De quotidiana SS. Eucharistiæ sumptione" (20 December, 1905). The means there highly recommended refer to the following points: (1) To instruct, refute objections, spread writings favouring daily Communion; (2) To encourage assistance at Holy Mass; (3) To promote Eucharistic triduums; (4) To induce children especially to approach the Holy Table frequently. "The Society of Nocturnal Adoration", the members of which for an entire night keep watch before the Host, reciting the Office of the Blessed Sacrament, and offering various acts of reparative homage; The apostolate of the press is a prominent feature in the labours of these religious. In the United States, they publish "Emmanuel", the organ of "The Priests' Eucharistic League", and "The Sentinel of the Blessed Sacrament". For bibliography see EYMARD, PIERRE-JULEN, VENERABLE. A. LETELLIER The Society of the Sacred Heart of Jesus The Society of the Sacred Heart of Jesus An institution of religious women, taking perpetual vows and devoted to the work of education, founded 21 November, 1800, by Madeleine-Sophie Barat (q.v.). One of the signs of returning vigour in the Church in France after 1792 was the revival of the religious life. Religious orders had been suppressed by the laws of 18 August, 1792, but within a few years a reaction set in; the restoration of some orders and the foundations of new congregations ushered in "the second spring". One of the first was the Society of Jesus. Under the provisional title of "Fathers of the Sacred Heart" and "Fathers of the Faith", some devoted priests banded themselves together and in due time returned from their exile or emigration to devote themselves to the spiritual welfare of their country. Father Léonor De Tournély was among the founders of the Fathers of the Sacred Heart, and the first to whom it occurred that an institute of women bearing the same name and devoting themselves to the education of girls, would be one of the most efficacious means of restoring the practice of religion in France. Though many difficulties intervened, two attempts were made. Princess Louise de Bourbon Condé before the Revolution a Benedictine abbess, and the Archduchess Mary Anne of Austria both tried to form an institute according to his idea; but neither succeeded, and he died before anything could be accomplished. He had confided his views to Father Varin who succeeded him as superior of the Fathers of the Sacred Heart. A short time afterwards Father Varin found in Madeleine-Sophie Barat, sister of Father Louis Barat, the instrument to execute his plans. The first members of the new society began their community life in Paris, under the guidance of Father Varin. The first convent was opened at Amiens in 1801, under Mademoiselle Loquet. A school which had already existed there was made over to the new institute, and some who had worked in it offered themselves as postulants for the "Dames de la Foi" or "De L'Instruction Chrétienne", the name which the new society had assumed, as that of the "Society of the Sacred Heart", might be supposed to indicate a connection with the royalist party of La Vendée. As Mlle. Loquet, who had been acting as superior, lacked the requisite qualities, by the advice of Father Varin and with the assent of the community Sophie Barat was named superior. By education and temperament, the new superior was especially fitted for the work of foundation. In 1804 a second house was opened and a new member, Phillippine Duchesne, received, who was destined to carry the work of the society beyond the limits of France. Formerly a novice of the Visitation convent at Ste. Marie d'en Haut, near Grenoble, Mlle. Duchesne found it impossible to reconstruct the religious life of the Visitation in the convent which she purchased after the Revolution. Father Varin made her acquaintance and reported to Mother Barat that the house was offered to her, and that she could find there some who wished to join her. The first plan of the institute was drawn up by Father Roger and Varin, and with a memorial composed by Mothers Barat and Duchesne was presented to the Bishop of Grenoble and approved by him. This plan and memorial set forth the end of the association, which was the perfection of its members and the salvation of souls; the spirit aimed at detachment from the world, purity of intention for the glory of the Sacred Heart, gentleness, zeal, and obedience; the means, for the religious, the training of the novitiate, and spiritual exercises, for others, boarding schools for the upper classes, free schools for the poor, and spiritual retreats. The rule in this preliminary stage was simple; the houses were to be under one superior-general, everything was to be in common, the office of the Blessed Virgin was to be recited, the time appointed for mental prayer was specified. The manner of life was to be simple without the prescribed austerities of the older orders, which would be incompatible with the work of education. On mother Barat's return to Amiens in 1806 the first general congregation was assembled for the election of the superior-general, and she was chosen for the office. Father Varin then withdrew form the position he had held as superior of the new institute which was now regularly constituted, but he continued for years to help the young superior-general with his advice and support. The first serious trouble which arose nearly wrecked the whole undertaking. At the end of 1809 the "Dames de la Foi" had six houses; Amiens, Grenoble, Poitiers, Niort, Ghent, and Cuigniers. The first house at Amiens was governed at this time by Mother Baudemont, who fell under the influence of a priest of the Diocese of Amiens, Abbé de St-Estéve, who took that house under his control and even drew up a set of rules drawn from those of the monastic orders and entirely foreign to the spirit of Father Varin and the foundress. The devotion to the Sacred Heart which was to be its very life scarcely appeared in the new rules and they were in consequence not acceptable to any of the houses outside Amiens. Abbé de St-Estéve was determined to force the matter. He went to Rome and from thence sent orders, ostensibly from the Holy See. The name of the Society of the Sacred Heart was to be abandoned for that of "Apostolines", and he wrote vehement letters condemning Father Varin and the superior-general and her work. The most important letter in the case proved to be a forgery. The institute recovered its balance, but the house at Ghent had been already lost to the society. The second general congregation (1815) examined the constitution which had been elaborated by Father Varin and Mother Barat (they were an expansion of the first plan presented to the Bishop of Grenoble) and they were accepted by all the houses of the society. It was decided to have a general novitiate in Paris. The third general congregation (1820) drew up the first uniform plan of studies which had been developed and modified from time to time to bring it into harmony with present needs, without losing the features which have characterized it from the beginning. In 1826 the society obtained the formal approbation of Leo XII and the first cardinal protector was appointed, in place of an ecclesiastical superior whose authority would have depended too much upon local conditions. The sixth general congregation was anxious to bring the constitutions into close comformity with those of the Society of Jesus. Mother Barat foresaw that the proposed changed were unsuitable for a congregation of women, but permitted an experimental trial of them for three years. Finally the whole affair was submitted to Gregory XVI, who decided that the society should return in all points to the constitution approved by Leo XII. The last changes in the constitutions were made in 1851 with the sanction of the Holy See. Superiors-vicar were named to help the superior-general in the government of the society by taking the immediate supervision of a certain number of houses forming a vicariate. The superior-vicar assembled with the mother general and the assistants general, form the general congregation of the society. In 1818 Mother Philippine Duchesne introduced the society into the United States and the first houses were founded in Missouri and Louisiana. The society under the guidance of Mother Mary Aloysia Hardey(q.v) spread rapidly, and in 1910 counted twenty-seven houses and more than eleven hundred members. The extension in Europe was confined to France until 1827 when a school was opened at the Trinità dei Monti, Rome. Houses were founded in Belgium (Jette), 1836; England (Berrymead, now Roehampton) and Ireland (Roscrea), both in 1841; Canada (Montreal), 1842; Austria (Lemberg), 1843; Spain (Sarria, near Barcelona), 1846. Mother du Rousier was the pioneer in South America (Santiago de Chile in 1854). Other foundations were made in the West Indies (1858); New Zealand (1880); Australia (1882); Egypt (1903); Japan (1908). The Revolution of 1830 disturbed the house in Paris but did not destroy it; the novitiate was removed elsewhere. In 1848 the house in Switzerland had to be abandoned; the religious were expelled from Genoa, Turim, Saluzzo, and Pignerol while the houses in Rome were searched and pillaged. In 1860 Loreto, St. Elpidio, and Perugia were suppressed. The German houses were closed by the May Laws of 1873. Between 1903 and 1909 forty-seven houses in France were closed and many of them confiscated by the French government. The mother-house was transferred to Brussels in 1909. This wholesale destruction increased the extension in foreign countries; for almost every house that has been closed another has been opened elsewhere. At present the society counts 139 houses and about 6500 religious. The society aims at a twofold spirit--contemplative and active. It is composed of choir religious and lay sisters. enclosure is observed in a manner adapted to the works; the Office of the Blessed Virgin is recited in choir. The choice of subjects is guided by the qualifications laid down in the constitutions. In addition to the indication of a true religious vocation there is required respectable parentage, unblemished reputation, a good or at least sufficient education with some aptitude for completing it, a sound judgment, and above all a generous determination to make an entire surrender of self to the service of God through the hands of superiors. The candidate is not allowed to make any conditions as to place residence or employment, but must be ready to be sent by obedience to any part of the world, even the privilege of going on foreing missions is not definitely promised in the beginning to those who aspire to it. Postulants are admitted to a preliminary probation of three months, at the end of which they may take the religious habit and begin their novitiate of two years, which are spent in studying the spirit and the rules of the society, exercising themselves in its manner of living, and in the virtues which they will be called upon to practice; the second year is devoted to a course of study which is to prepare them for their educational work. To each novitiate there is attached a teaching and training department where the first course of studies may be taken, and when it is possible the young religious pass a year in this, after their vows, before they are sent to teach in the schools. The first vows, simple perpetual vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, are taken at the end of two years of noviceship, after which follow five years spend in study, teaching, or other duties. At the end of this period follows for those who have special aptitude for the work of teaching, another short course of study, and for all a period of second novitiate or probation lasting six months, at the end of which, that is to say, seven years after their admission to the society, the aspirants take their final vows and are received as professed religious. The vow of stability, that is, of perseverance in the society, is then added, and for the choir religious a vow to consecrate themselves to education of youth; provision is made, however, that this vow may be accomplished even if obedience should prescribe other duties than those of direct teaching, and may be fulfilled by concurrence in any way in the work of the society. The vow of stability binds the society to the professed until death, as well as the professed to the society; this bond can only be broken by the Holy See. The society is governed by a superior general, elected for life by the assistants general and superiors vicar. The assistants general are elected for six years, the superiors vicar and local superiors are nominated by the mother general, and may be changed at her discretion; their usual period of government is three years, but it may be prologed or shortened according to circumstances. The superior general assembles the superiors vicar in a general congregation every six years, and with the help of the assistants general transacts with them all business connected with the general government of the society. These periodical assemblies, the occasional visits of the superior general to the houses in different countries, the regular reports and accounts sent in from every vicariate, the free access of all to the mother general by writing, and in particular the organization of the house of last probation, which as far as possible brings the young religious for six months into touch with the first superiors of the society--all tend to unity. Its union is what is most valued, and if it had been possible to define it sufficiently it is said that a fourth vow of charity would have been added to the obligations of the members. Four principal works give scope to the activities of the society. + Education of the upper classes in the boarding schools and of late years in day schools. Originally the plan of studies was more or less uniform in all the houses, but it has become necessary to modify it according to the needs and educational ideals of different countries and the kind of life for which the pupils have to be prepared. The character of the education of the Sacred Heart, however, remains the same, based on the study of religious and of Christian philosophy and laying particular stress on history, literature, essay-writting, modern languages, and such knowledge of household management as can be taught at school. + Free or parochial schools. In some countries, as in England, these are aided by the State, and follow the regulations laid down for other public elementary school; in others they are voluntary and adapt their teaching to the needs and circumstances of the children. Between these two classes of schools have arisen in England secondary schools, aided by the State, which are principally feeding schools for the two training colleges in London and Newcastle, where Catholic teachers are prepared for the certificates entitling them to teach in elementary state-supported schools. This work is of wider importance than the teaching of single elementary schools, and is valued as a means of reaching indirectly a far greater number of children than those with whom the religious themselves can come into contact. It likewise leavens the teaching profession with minds trained in Catholic doctrine and practice. This work for Catholic teachers also exists at Lima in a flourishing condition. + A work which is taking rapid development is that of spiritual retreats for all classes of persons. The spiritual exercises are given to considerable numbers of ladies who spend a few days within the convents of the Sacred Heart; in other cases the exercises are adapted for poor girls and peasant women. Retreats for First Communion in Rome, and retreats for Indian women in Mexico are special varieties of this work. + The congregations of Children of Mary loving in the world which have their own rules and organizations (see Children of Mary of the Sacred Heart, The). JANET STUART Socinianism Socinianism The body of doctrine held by one of the numerous Antitrinitarian sects to which the Reformation gave birth. The Socinians derive their name from two natives of Siena, Lelio Sozzini (1525-62) and his nephew Fausto Sozinni (1539-1604). The surname is variously given, but its Latin form, Socinus, is that currently used. It is to Fausto, or Faustus Socinus, that the sect owes its individuality, but it arose before he came into contact with it. In 1546 a secret society held meetings at Vicenza in the Diocese of Venice to discuss, among other points, the doctrine of the Trinity. Among the members of this society were Blandrata, a well-known physician, Alciatus, Gentilis, and Lelio, or Laelius Socinus. The last-named, a priest of Siena, was the intimate friend of Bullinger, Calvin, and Melanchthon. The object of the society was the advocacy not precisely of what were afterwards known as Socinian principles, but of Antitrinitarianism. The Nominalists, represented by Abelard, were the real progenitors of the Antitrinitarians of the Reformation period, but while many of the Nominalists ultimately became Tritheists, the term Antitrinitarian means expressly one who denies the distinction of persons in the Godhead. The Antitrinitarians are thus the later representatives of the Sabellians, Macedonians, and Arians of an earlier period. The secret society which met at Vicenza was broken up, and most of its members fled to Poland. Laelius, indeed, seems to have lived most at Zurich, but he was the mainspring of the society, which continued to hold meetings at Cracow for the discussion of religious questions. He died in 1562 and a stormy period began for the members of the party. The inevitable effect of the principles of the Reformation was soon felt, and schism made its appearance in the ranks of the Antitrinitarians--for so we must call them all indiscriminately at this time. In 1570 the Socinians separated, and, through the influence of the Antitrinitarian John Sigismund, established themselves at Racow. Meanwhile, Faustus Socinus had obtained possession of his uncle's papers and in 1579 came to Poland. He found the various bodies of the sect divided, and he was at first refused admission because he refused to submit to a second baptism. In 1574 the Socinians had issued a "Catechism of the Unitarians", in which, while much was said about the nature and perfection of the Godhead, silence was observed regarding those Divine attributes which are mysterious. Christ was the Promised Man; He was the Mediator of Creation, i. e., of Regeneration. It was shortly after the appearance of this catechism that Faustus arrived on the scene and, in spite of initial opposition, he succeeded in attaching all parties to himself and thus securing for them a degree of unity which they had not hitherto enjoyed. Once in possession of power, his action was high-handed. He had been invited to Siebenburg in order to counteract the influence of the Antitrinitarian bishop Francis David (1510-79). David, having refused to accept the peculiarly Socinian tenet that Christ, though not God, was to be adored, was thrown into prison, where he died. Budnaeus, who adhered to David's views, was degraded and excommunicated in 1584. The old catechism was not suppressed and a new one published under the title of the "Catechism of Racow". Though drawn up by Socinus, it was not published until 1605, a year after his death; it first appeared in Polish, then in Latin in 1609. Meanwhile the Socinians had flourished; they had established colleges, they held synods, and they had a printing press whence they issued an immense amount of religious literature in support of their views; this was collected, under the title "Bibliotheca Antitrinitarianorum", by Sandius. In 1638 the Catholics in Poland insisted on the banishment of the Socinians, who were in consequence dispersed. It is evident from the pages of Bayle that the sect was dreaded in Europe; many of the princes were said to favour it secretly, and it was predicted that Socinianism would overrun Europe. Bayle, however, endeavours to dispel these fears by dwelling upon the vigorous measures taken to prevent its spread in Holland. Thus, in 1639, at the suggestion of the British Ambassador, all the states of Holland were advised of the probable arrival of the Socinians after their expulsion from Poland; while in 1653 very stringent decrees were passed against them. The sect never had a great vogue in England; it was distasteful to Protestants who, less logical, perhaps, but more conservative in their views, were not prepared to go to the lengths of the Continental Reformers. In 1612 we find the names of Leggatt and Wightman mentioned as condemned to death for denying the Divinity of Christ. Under the Commonwealth, John Biddle was prominent as an upholder of Socinian principles; Cromwell banished him to the Scilly Isles, but he returned under a writ of habeas corpus and became minister of an Independent church in London. After the Restoration, however, Biddle was cast again into prison, where he died in 1662. The Unitarians are frequently identified with the Socinians, but there are fundamental differences between their doctrines. Fundamental Doctrines These may be gathered from the "Catechism of Racow", mentioned above and from the writings of Socinus himself, which are collected in the "Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum". The basis was, of course, private judgment; the Socinians rejected authority and insisted on the free use of reason, but they did not reject revelation. Socinus, in his work "De Auctoritate Scripturae Sacrae", went so far as to reject all purely natural religion. Thus for him the Bible was everything, but it had to be interpreted by the light of reason. Hence he and his followers thrust aside all mysteries; as the Socinian John Crell (d. 1633) says in his "De Deo et ejus Attributis", "Mysteries are indeed exalted above reason, but they do not overturn it; they by no means extinguish its light, but only perfect it". This would be quite true for a Catholic, but in the mouth of Socinian it meant that only those mysteries which reason can grasp are to be accepted. Thus both in the Racovian Catechism and in Socinus's "Institutiones Religionis Christianae", only the unity, eternity, omnipotence, justice, and wisdom of God are insisted on, since we could be convinced of these; His immensity, infinity, and omnipresence are regarded as beyond human comprehension, and therefore unnecessary for salvation. Original justice meant for Socinus merely that Adam was free from sin as a fact, not that he was endowed with peculiar gifts; hence Socinus denied the doctrine of original sin entirely. Since, too, faith was for him but trust in God, he was obliged to deny the doctrine of justification in the Catholic sense; it was nothing but a judicial act on the part of God. There were only two sacraments, and, as these were held to be mere incentives to faith, they had no intrinsic efficacy. Infant baptism was of course rejected. There was no hell; the wicked were annihilated. Christology This point was particularly interesting, as on it the whole of Socinianism turns. God, the Socinians maintained, and rightly is absolutely simple; but distinction of persons is destructive of such simplicity; therefore, they concluded the doctrine of the Trinity is unsound. Further, there can be no proportion between the finite and the infinite, hence there can be no incarnation, of the Deity, since that would demand some such proportion. But if, by an impossibility, there were distinction of persons in the Deity, no Divine person could be united to a human person, since there can by no unity between two individualities. These arguments are of course puerile and nothing but ignorance of Catholic teaching can explain the hold which such views obtained in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. As against the first argument, see St. Thomas, (Summa I:12:1, ad 4); for the solution of the others see Petavius. But the Socinians did not become Arians, as did Campanus and Gentilis. The latter was one of the original society which held its meetings at Vicenza; he was beheaded at Berne in 1566. They did not become Tritheists, as Gentilis himself was supposed by some to be. Nor did they become Unitarians, as might have been expected. Socinus had indeed many affinities with Paul of Samosata and Sabellius; with them he regarded the Holy Spirit as merely an operation of God, a power for sanctification. But his teaching concerning the person of Christ differed in some respects from theirs. For Socinus, Christ was the Logos, but he denied His pre-existence; He was the Word of God as being His interpreter (interpres divinae voluntatis). The passages from St. John which present the Word as the medium of creation were explained by Socinus of regeneration only. At the same time Christ was miraculously begotten: He was a perfect man, He was the appointed mediator, but He was not God, only deified man. In this sense He was to be adored; and it is here precisely that we have the dividing line between Socinianism and Unitarianism, for the latter system denied the miraculous birth of Christ and refused Him adoration. It must be confessed that, on their principles, the Unitarians were much more logical. Redemption and Sacraments Socinus's views regarding the person of Christ necessarily affected his teaching on the office of Christ as Redeemer, and consequently on the efficacy of the sacraments. Being purely man, Christ did not work out our redemption in the sense of satisfying for our sins; and consequently we cannot regard the sacraments as instruments whereby the fruits of that redemption are applied to man. Hence Socinus taught that the Passion of Christ was merely an example to us and a pledge of our forgiveness. All this teaching is syncretized in the Socinian doctrine regarding the Last Supper; it was not even commemorative of Christ's Passion, it was rather an act of thanksgiving for it. The Church and Socianism Needless to say, the tenets of the Socinians have been repeatedly condemned by the Church. As antitrinitarianists, they are opposed to the express teaching of the first six councils; their view of the person of Christ is in contradiction to the same councils, especially that of Chalcedon and the famous "Tome" (Ep. xxviii) of St. Leo the Great (cf. Denzinger, no. 143). For its peculiar views regarding the adoration of Christ, cg. can. ix of the fifth Ecumenical Synod (Denz., 221). It is opposed, too, to the various creeds, more especially to that of St. Athanasius. It has also many affinities with the Adoptionist heresy condemned in the Plenary Council of Frankfort, in 794, and in the second letter of Pope Hadrian I to the bishops of Spain (cf. Denz., 309-314). Its denial of the Atonement is in opposition to the decrees against Gotteschalk promulgated in 849 (cf. Denz., 319), and also to the definition of the Fourth Lateran Council against the Albigensians (Denz., 428; cf. also Conc. Trid., Sess. xxii., cap. i. de Sacrificio Missae, in Denz., 938). The condemned propositions of Abelard (1140) might equally well stand for those of the Socinians (cf. Denz., 368 sqq.). The same must be said of the Waldensian heresy: the Profession of Faith drawn up against them by Innocent III might be taken as a summary of Socinian errors. The formal condemnation of Socinianism appeared first in the Constitution of Paul IV, "Cum quorundam:, 1555 (Denz., 993); this was confirmed in 1603 by Clement VIII, or "Dominici gregis", but it is to be noted that both of these condemnations appeared before the publication of the "Catechism of Racow" in 1605, hence they do not adequately reflect the formal doctrines of Socinianism. At the same time it is to be remarked, that according to many, this catechism itself does not reflect the doctrines really held by the leaders of the party; it was intended for the laity alone. From the decree it would appear that in 1555 and again in 1603 the Socinians held: + that there was no Trinity, + that Christ was not consubstantial with the Father and Holy Spirit, + that He was not conceived of the Holy Spirit, but begotten by St. Joseph, + that His Death and Passion were not undergone to bring about our redemption, + that finally the Blessed Virgin was not the Mother of God, neither did she retain her virginity. It would seem from the Catechism that the Socinians of 1605 held that Christ was at least miraculously conceived, though in what sense they held this is not clear. HUGH POPE Sociology Sociology The claims of sociology (socius, companion; logos, science) to a place in the hierarchy of sciences are subjected to varied controversy. It has been held that there is no distinct problem for a science of sociology, no feature of human society not already provided for in the accepted social sciences. Again it has been claimed that while the future may hold out prospects for a science such as sociology, its present condition leaves much to be desired. Furthermore, among sociologists themselves discussion and disagreement abound concerning aims, problems, and methods of the science. Beyond this confusion in scientific circles, misunderstanding results from the popular habit of confounding sociology with philanthropy, ethics, charity, and relief, social reform, statistics, municipal problems, socialism, sanitation, criminology, and politics. It is hardly to be expected that differences of opinion would not occur when scholars endeavour to describe in simple terms the complex social processes; to pack a vast array of historical and contemporaneous facts in rigid logical classes, and to mark off for research purposes sections of reality which in fact overlap at a hundred points. Nevertheless, efforts to create a science of sociology have led to notable results. Minds of a very high order have been attracted to the work; abundant literature of great excellence has been produced; neighbouring sciences have been deeply affected by the new point of view which Sociology has fostered; and the teaching of the science has attained to undisputed recognition in the universities of the world. It is the aim of economic science to investigate the forms, relations, and processes that occur among men in their associated efforts to make immediate or mediate provision for their physical wants. The science deals with the phenomena resulting from the production, distribution, and consumption of wealth. The science of politics is concerned with the stable social relations resulting from the efforts of sovereign social units to maintain themselves in integrity in their internal and external relations and to promote human progress. The state is the institution in which these activities centre. Hence, the forms in which sovereignty is clothed, the processes of change which occur among them, and the varying functions of government are central problems in this field of investigation. The science of religions aims at describing the stable social relations which occur when men collectively endeavour to understand the law of their relation to a Supreme Being and to adjust their worship and conduct to His supreme will. The science of law is concerned with those principles, relations, and institutions through which the more important relations between the one and the many are defined, directed, and sanctioned by the sovereign state. The science of ethics aims at expounding the principles and sanctions by which all human conduct, both individual and social, is adjusted to the supreme end of man; or, in the Christian sense of the term, to the will of God. The science of history, which assumes the law of continuity in human society, endeavours to look out over its whole surface, to discover and describe in a large way the processes of change that have occurred in social relations of whatsoever kind. Each of these social sciences is analytical or descriptive, but in its complete development it should have a normative or directive side. To use the technical phrase, it is teleological. The complete function of each of them should include the setting forth of a purpose for human conduct and should offer direction towards it, which is modified by the relations in which each stands to the others. Some sociologists endeavour to locate their science as logically antecedent to all of these. According to this view sociology should occupy itself with general phases of the processes of human association and should furnish an introduction to the special social sciences. Others endeavour to locate sociology as the philosophical synthesis of the results of the special social sciences, in which view it resembles somewhat the philosophy of history. Giddings includes both functions in his description of the science. He says in his "Principles of sociology": "While Sociology in the broadest sense of the word is the comprehensive science of society, coextensive with the entire field of the special social sciences, in a narrower sense and for the purposes of university study and of general exposition it may be defined as the science of social elements and first principles. . . . Its far-reaching principles are the postulates of special sciences and as such they co-ordinate the whole body of social generalizations and bind them together in a large scientific whole" (p. 33). There is a general tendency towards the establishment of a single dominant interest in social groups. Periods of unstable equilibrium tend to be followed by constructive epochs in which some one social interest tends to dominate. This is the case when social groups are primitive and isolated as well as when they are highly organized and progressive. It may be the food interest, the maintenance of the group against invasion, the thirst for conquest incarnate in a leader, or the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth that serves as the basis of social unity. In any case, the tendency of social groups towards unity is practically universal. In earlier stages of civilization the process is relatively simple, but to-day, when differences of climate, race, environment, type, and place are overcome by progress in transportation, travel, communication, and industry, the process is highly complex. Political institutions, languages, and race traditions no longer bound the horizon of the thinker. To-day all states are submerged in the larger view of humanity. All cultures, civilizations, centuries, all wars, and armaments, all nations and customs are before the social student. Origins heretofore hidden are exposed to his confused gaze. Interpretations, venerable with age and powerful from heretofore unquestioning acceptance, are swept away and those that are newer are substituted. Dozens of social sciences flow with torrential impatience, hurling their discoveries at the feet of the student, Thousands of minds are busy day and night gathering facts, offering interpretations, and seeking relations. The social sciences have become so overburdened with facts and so confused by varying interpretations that they tend to split into separate subsidiary sciences in the hope that the mind may thus escape its own limitations and find help in its power of generalization. Economic factors and processes are studied more industriously than ever before, but they are found to have in themselves vital bearings other than economic. Political, religious, educational, and social facts are found saturated with heretofore unsuspected meanings, which in each particular case the science itself is unable to handle. In this situation three general lines of work present themselves. + There is the need of careful study of commonplace social facts from a point of view wider than that fostered in each particular social science. + The results obtained within the different social sciences and among them should be brought together in general interpretations. + A social philosophy is needed which will endeavour to take the established results of these sciences and put them together through the cohesive power of metaphysics and philosophy into an attempted interpretation of the whole course of human society itself. Professor Small thus describes the situation: "We need a genetic, 8tatic, and teleological account of associated human life; a statement which can be relied upon as the basis of a philosophy of conduct. In order to derive such a statement it would be necessary to complete a programme of analyzing and synthesizing the social process in all of its phases." On the whole the sociological treatment of social facts is much wider than that found in the other social sciences and its interpretations are consequently broader. An endeavour is made in following out the social point of view to study social facts in the full complement of their organic relations. Thus, for instance, if the sociologist studies the question of woman suffrage, it appears as a phase in a world-movement. He goes back through the available history of all times and civilizations endeavouring to trace the changing place of woman in industry, in the home, education, and before the law. By looking outward to the horizon and backwards to the vanishing point of the perspective of history, the sociologist endeavours to discover all of the relations of the suffrage movement which confronts us to-day and tries to interpret its relation to the progress of the race. He will discover that the marriage rate, the birth rate, the movement for higher education, the demand for political and social equality are not unrelated facts but are organically connected in the processes that centre on woman in human society. The student of economics, politics, ethics, or law will be directly interested in particular phases of the process. But the sociologist will aim at reaching an all-inclusive view in order to interpret the entire movement in its organic relations to historical and actual social processes. Likewise, whether the problem be that of democracy, liberty, equality, war, armaments and arbitration, tariffs or inventions, the organization of labour, revolution, political parties, centralization of wealth, conflicts among social classes, the sociologist will endeavour to discover their wider bearings and their place in the social processes of which they are part. The method employed in sociology is primarily inductive. At times ethnological and biological methods have predominated but their sway has been diminished in recent years. Sociology suffers greatly from its failure to establish as yet a satisfactory basis of classification for social phenomena. Although much attention has been given to this problem the results achieved still leave much to be desired. The general point of view held in sociology, as distinct from the particular point of view held in the special social sciences, renders this problem of classification particularly difficult and causes the science to suffer from the very mass of indiscriminate material which its scholarship has brought to view. Hence, the process of observation and interpretation has been somewhat uncertain and results have been subjected to vehement discussion. The fundamental problem for sociology is to discover and to interpret co-existences and sequences among social phenomena. In its study of origins and of historical development of social forms, sociology necessarily makes use of ethnological methods. It resorts extensively to comparative methods in its endeavour to correlate phenomena related to the same social process as they appear in different times and places. The statistical method is of the highest importance in determining quantities among social phenomena, while the prevailing tendency to look upon society from a psychological point of view has led to the general method of psychological analysis. The efforts to develop a systematic sociology deductively have not yet led to any undisputed results although the evolutionary hypothesis prevails widely. The range of methods to be found among sociologists might be fairly well illustrated among American writers by a comparison of the works of Morgan, Ward, Giddings, Baldwin, Cooley, Ross, Sumner, Mayo-Smith, and Small. In as far as modern sociology has been developed on the philosophical side it has naturally been unable to remain free of metaphysics. It shows a marked tendency towards Agnosticism, Materialism, and Determinism. "He would be a bold man", says Professor Giddings, addressing the Amer. Economic Association in 1903, "who to-day after a thorough training in the best historical scholarship should venture to put forth a philosophy of history in terms of the divine ideas or to trace the plan of an Almighty in the sequence of human events. On the other hand, those interpretations that are characterized as materialistic . . . are daily winning serious respect." Even when the science has been confined to the humbler rôle of observation and interpretation of particular social facts and processes, its devotees have been unable to refrain from assumptions which are offensive to the Christian outlook on life. Theoretically, social facts may he observed as such, regardless of philosophy. But social observation which ignores the moral and social interpretation of social facts and processes is necessarily incomplete. One must have some principle of interpretation when one interprets, and one always tends towards interpretation. Thus it is that even descriptive sociology tends to become directive or to offer interpretations, and in so doing it often takes on a tone with which the Christian cannot agree. If, for instance, the sociologist proposes a standard family of a limited number of children in the name of human progress, by implication he assumes an attitude towards the natural and Divine law which is quite repugnant to Catholic theology. Again, when he interprets divorce in its relation to supposed social progress alone and finds little if any fault with it, he lays aside for the moment the law of marriage given by Christ. When, too, the sociologist studies the relation of the State to the family and the individual or the relations of the Church and the State he comes into direct contact with the fundamental principles of Catholic social philosophy. When he studies the religious phenomena of history, he cannot avoid taking an attitude toward the distinctive claims of Christianity in his interpretation of the facts of its history. Thus it is that sociology, not only on its philosophical side but also on the side of observation, interpretations, and social direction, tends to take on a tone that is often foreign to and as often antagonistic to Catholic philosophy. Professor Ward would forbid pure sociology to have anything to do with the direction of human conduct. He says, for instance, in his "Pure Sociology": "All ethical considerations in however wide a sense that expression may be understood must be ignored for the time being and attention concentrated upon the effort to determine what actually is. Pure Sociology has no concern with what Sociology ought to be or with any social ideals. It confines itself strictly with the present and the past, allowing the future to take care of itself." But he would give to what he terms Applied Sociology the function of directing society toward its immediate ideals. He says: "The subject matter of Pure Sociology is achievement, that of Applied Sociology is improvement. The former relates to the past and the present, the latter to the future." Sociology can scarcely avoid interpretation and direction of human conduct and hence it can hardly be expected to avoid taking very definite attitudes towards the Christian outlook on life. Modern sociology hopes to arrive at a metaphysics through the systematic observation and interpretation of present and past social facts and processes. In the Christian view of life, however, the social sciences are guided by a sanctioned metaphysics and philosophy. This philosophy is derived not from induction but from Revelation. This view of life accepts at the outset as Divinely warranted the moral and social precepts taught or re-enforced by Christ. Thus, it looks out upon the real largely from the standpoint of the ideal and judges the former by the latter. It does not, of course, for a moment forget that the systematic observation of life and knowledge of its processes are essential to the understanding and application of the Divine precepts and to the establishment of the sanctioned spiritual ideals which it professes. But Christian social philosophy did not, for example, derive its doctrine of human brotherhood by induction; it received it directly from the lips of Christ. And the consequences of that Christian principle in human history are beyond all calculation. The Christian view of life does not confound the absolute with the conventional in morality, although in the literature of Christianity too much emphasis may at times be placed upon what is relative. A Christian sociology, therefore, would be one that carries with it always the philosophy of Christ. It could not look with indifference on the varied and complicated social processes amid which we live and move. In all of its study and interpretation of what is going on in life -- which is largely the function of sociology -- it never surrenders concern for what ought to be, however clearly or dimly this "ought" is seen. While modern sociology is seeking descriptive laws of human desires and is endeavouring to classify human interests and to account for social functions, it is seeking merely for changes, uniformities, and interpretations unconcerned with any relation of these to the Divine law. Christian sociology, on the contrary, is actuated mainly by concern about the relations of social changes to the law and Revelation of God. It classifies processes, institutions, and relations as right or wrong, good or bad, and offers to men directive laws of human desire and distinctive standards of social valuations by which social conduct should be governed. Economics as it developed under Christian influences related largely to the search for justice in property relations among men rather than to the evolution of property itself. What ever attempts were made to correlate and interpret economic phenomena, they were inspired largely by the search for justice and by the hope of holding industrial relations true to the law of justice as it was understood. Political science as it developed under Christian influence never lost sight of the Divine sanction of civil authority. The study of the forms and changes of government, little as the underlying processes were then understood, never departed far from the thought of the state as a natural and Christian phenomenon and the exercise of its authority as a delegated power from on high. Thus, whatever there was of social science, rudimentary because of the static view of society which obtained, it grew out of the study and application of the moral and social principles derived from the Revelation of God and presented to the believer through the instrumentality of the Church. The great emphasis placed in our days of wonderful social investigation and of world-views of social processes causes those earlier attempts at social science to appear crude, yet they developed organically out of their historical surroundings, retaining, for all time, titles to no mean consideration. Scattered here and there throughout theological and moral treatises in Christian literature there is a vast amount of sociological material, which has its value in our own time. The present-day endeavours of sociology to classify human desires and fundamental interests appear to have been anticipated in a modest way in the work of the medieval Scholastics. Theological treatises on human acts and their morality reveal a very practical understanding of the influence of objective and subjective environment on character. Treatises on sin, on the virtues, on good and bad example touch constantly on social facts and processes as then understood. The mainspring of all of this work, however, was not to show forth social processes as such, not to look for theretofore unknown law, but to enable the individual to discover himself in the social process and to hold his conduct true to his ideals. To some extent there is confusion in speaking of sociology in this way since reference appears to be made rather to moral direction than to social investigation. The relations between all of the social sciences are intimate. The results established in the fields of the social sciences will always have the greatest importance for Christian ethics. It must take up the undisputed results of sociological investigation and widen its definitions at times. It must restate rights and obligations in the terms of newer social relations and adjust its own system to much that it can welcome from the hands of the splendid scholarship now devoted to social study. Bouquillon (q. v.), who was a distinguished theologian, complained that we had not paid sufficient attention to the results of modern social research. Illustration may be found in the problem of private property, which is a storm centre in modern life and is the object of most acute study from the standpoint of the social sciences. Suum cuique may be called the law of justice that is back of all social changes and is sanctioned for all time. But the social processes which change from time to time the content of suum may not be neglected. Changes in the forms of property, varied consequences from the failure to have it at all and from the having of it in excess, are seen about us every day. It is undeniably the business of ethics to teach the sanctions of private property and defend them, but it must willingly learn the sociological meaning of property, the significance of changes in its forms, and the laws that govern these changes. This is largely the work of other social sciences. Ethics must proclaim the inviolable natural rights of the individual to private property in certain forms. It must proclaim the pernicious moral consequences that may flow from certain property conditions, but it will fail of its high mission unless in its indispensable ethical work it take account of the established results of social investigation. Economics, ethics, sociology, politics are drawn together by the complex problems of property and each has much to learn from the others. And so, whether the problem be that of the Christian family, the relations of social classes, altruism, the modification of the forms of government, the changing status of woman, the representative of the Christian outlook on life may not for a moment ignore the results of these particular social sciences. Closer relations have been established between Christian ethics and sociology in modern days. Modern social conditions with their rapid changes, accompanied by ethical and philosophical unrest, have set up a challenge which the Christian Church must meet without hesitation. The Catholic Church has not failed to speak out definitely in the circumstances. The School of Catholic Social Reform, which has reached such splendid development on the European continent, represents the closer sympathy between the old Christian ethics and the later sociological investigation. Problems of poverty seen in its organic relations to social organization as a whole, problems and challenges raised by the modern industrial labouring class, demand for a widening of the definitions of individual and social responsibility to meet the facts of modern social power of whatsoever kind, reaffirmations of the rights of individuals have been taken account of in this whole Christian modern movement with the happiest result. There has been produced an abundant literature in which traditional Christian ethics take ample account of modern social investigations and the theories thus formulated have created a movement for social amelioration which is playing a notable part in the present-day history of Europe. Since all of the social sciences are concerned with the same complex fact of human association, it is but to be expected that the older sciences would have contained in their literature much that in the long run is turned over to the newer ones. Sociological material is found, therefore, throughout the history of the other social sciences. The word "sociology" comes from Auguste Comte, who used it in his course of positive philosophy, to indicate one of the sections in his scheme of sciences. Spencer sanctioned the use of the word and gave it a place in permanent literature by using it unreservedly in his own system of philosophy. He undertook to explain all social changes as phases in the great inclusive process of evolution. Society was conceived of as an organism. Research and exposition were directed largely by the biological analogy. Schaeffle, Lilienfeld, and René Worms were later exponents of this same view. Later schools in sociology have emancipated themselves from the sway of the biological analogy and have turned toward ethnological, anthropological, and psychological aspects of the great problems involved. Repeated attempts have been made to discover the fundamental unifying principle by which all social processes may be classified and explained, but none of them have met general acceptance. The drift to-day is largely toward the psychological aspects of human association. Professors Giddings and Baldwin may be looked upon as its representatives in the United States. Aside from these attempts at systematic or philosophical sociology there is scarcely an aspect of human association which is not now under investigation from the sociological standpoint. That this activity in a field of such great interest to the welfare of the human race promises much for human progress is beyond question. Even now statesmen, religious teachers, educators, and leaders in movements for social amelioration do not fail to take advantage of the results of sociological research. See ETHICS; PSYCHOLOGY; CHURCH; and articles on the other social sciences. The following text-books summarize the field of sociology from various standpoints: WARD, Outlines of Sociology (New York, 1898); DEALY, Sociology (New York, 1909); GUMPLOWICZ, Outlines of Soc. (tr. MOORE), pub. by Amer. Acad. of Soc. and Pol. Sc. (1899); GIDDINGS, Elem. of Soc. (New York, 1898); BASCOM, Sociology; BLACKMAR, Elem. of Soc. (New York, 1905); STUCKENBERG, Sociology (New York, 1903). The following general treatises aim to present the new sociological point of view: Ross, Social Control (New York, 1901); IDEM, Soc. Psychology (New York, 1908); COOLEY, Soc. Organization (New York, 1909); SMALL, General Soc. (Chicago, 1905); IDEM, Meaning of Social Science (Chicago, 1910); McDOUGAL, Soc. Psychology (London); BALDWIN, Social and Ethical Interpretations (New York, 1902); KIDD, Soc. Evolution (New York, 1894). Systematic Treatises: SPENCER, Principle, of Soc.; SCHAEFFLE, Bau und Leben des sozialen Korpers; LILIENFELD, Gedanken über die Sozialwissenschaft der Zukunft (5 vols., Mitau, 1873); LETOURNEAU, La sociologie, tr. TRALLOPE (Paris, 1884); TARDE, The Laws of Imitation, tr. PARSONS (New York, 1903); SIMMEL, Soziologie (Leipzig, 1908); WARD, Pure Soc. (New York, 1903); IDEM, Applied Soc. (New York, 1906); GIDDINGS, Principles of Soc. (New York, 1899); IDEM, Inductive Soc. (New York, 1901). Periodicals: Annales de l'inst. interna. de soc.; Rev. intern. de soc.; American Jour. of Soc. Discussions of the nature and relations of sociology will be found in Reports of meetings of economic, historical, and political sciences associations and in text-books on the various social sciences. For discussion of the science from a Catholic standpoint, see SLATER, Modern Sociology in the Irish Theo. Quart., VI, nos. 21, 22. WILLIAM J. KERBY. Diocese of Socorro Diocese of Socorro (DE SUCCURSU.) Established in 1895 as a suffragan see of the Archdiocese of Bogota, in the Republic of Colombia, South America. The Catholic population in 1910 numbered 230,000. The city of Socorro arose at Chiancon, the settlement of an Indian chief of the same name, in 1540 defeated and captured by the discoverer Martin Galeano. In 1681 the village moved to its present site under the auspices of Our Lady of Succour (Socorro), with which name the rank of parish was given it in 1683, and it was definitively constructed eight years later. In 1771 it was raised to the rank of a town. This city was one of the first in starting the Colombian movement for Independence, for as late as 1781 there was a revolt against the Spanish authorities. Socorro is the capital of the province of the same name, in the Department of Santander. The present bishop is the Rt. Rev. Evaristo Blanco. (See COLOMBIA, REPUBLIC OF.) JULIAN MORENO-LACALLE Socrates Socrates A historian of the Early Church, b. at Constantinople towards the end of the fourth century. Nothing is known of his parentage and his early years with the exception of a few details found in his own works. He tells us himself (Hist. eccl., V, xxiv) that he studied under the grammarians Helladius and Ammonius, and from the title of scholasticus which is given to him it has been concluded that he belonged to the legal profession. The greater part of his life was spent in Constantinople, for which reason, as he admits, the affairs of that city occupy such a large part in his works. From the manner in which he speaks of other cities and from his references as an eyewitness to events which happened outside Constantinople, he is credited with having visited other countries in the East. Though a layman he was excellently qualified to recount the history of ecclesiastical affairs. Love of history, especially the history of his own time, and a warm admiration for Eusebius of Cæsarea impelled him to undertake the task in which he was sustained by the urgent solicitation of a certain Theodorus to whom his work is dedicated. His purpose was to continue the work of Eusebius down to his own time; but in order to round out his narrative and to supplement and revise some statements of Eusebius, he began at the year 306, when Constantine was declared emperor. His work ends with the seventeenth consulate of Theodosius the Younger, 439. The division of his history into seven books was based on the imperial succession in the Eastern Empire. The first book embraces events in the reign of Constantine (306-37): the second those in the reign of Constantius (337-60): the third includes the reigns of Julian and Jovian (360-4): the fourth deals with the reign of Valens (364-78): the fifth with that of Theodosius the Great (379-95): the sixth with that of Arcadius (393-408): the seventh with the first thirty-one years of the reign of Theodosius the Younger (408-39). The general character of the work of Socrates can be judged from his attitude on doctrinal questions. Living as he did in an age of bitter polemics, he strove to avoid the animosities and hatred engendered by theological differences. He was in entire accord with the Catholic party in opposing the Arians, Eunomians, Macedonians, and other heretics. The moderate tone, however, which he used in speaking of the Novatians, and the favourable references which he makes to them, have led some authors into the belief that he belonged to this sect, but it is now generally admitted that the expressions which he used were based on his desire for impartiality and his wish to give even his enemies credit for whatever good he could find in them. His attitude towards the Church was one of unvarying respect and submission. He honoured clerics because of their sacred calling, and entertained the profoundest veneration for monks and the monastic spirit. His ardent advocacy and defence of Christianity did not, nevertheless, prevent him from using the writings of pagan authors, nor from urging Christians to study them. Though he entitled his work Ekklesiastike historia, Socrates did not confine himself merely to recounting events in the history of the Church. He paid attention to the military history of the period, because he considered it necessary to relate these facts, but principally "in order that the minds of the readers might not become satiated with the repetition of the contentious disputes of bishops, and their insidious designs against one another; but more especially that it might be made apparent that, whenever the affairs of the State were disturbed, those of the Church, as if by some vital sympathy, became disordered also" (Introd. to Book V). Though thus recognizing the intimate relation of civil and ecclesiastical affairs, Socrates had no well-defined theory of Church and State. Socrates had a restricted idea of the scope and function of history. To his mind the task of the historian consisted in recording the troubles of mankind, for as long as peace continues, those who desire to write histories will find no materials for their purpose (VII, xlviii). As an example of historical composition the work of Socrates ranks very high. The simplicity of style which he cultivated and for which he was reproached by Photius, is entirely in keeping with his method and spirit. Not the least among his merits is the sedulousness he exhibited in the collection of evidence. He had a truly scientific instinct for primary sources, and the number of authors he has drawn on proves the extent of his reading and the thoroughness of his investigations. In addition to using the works of such men as Athanasius, Evagrius, Palladius, Nestorius, he drew freely on public and official documents, conciliar Acts, encyclical letters, etc. As might be expected when writing of events so close to his own time, he had to depend frequently on the reports of eyewitnesses, but even then he used their evidence with prudence and caution. Notwithstanding his industry and impartiality, however, his work is not without serious defects. Though restricting himself so largely to the affairs of the Eastern Church, he is guilty of many serious omissions in regard to other parts of Christendom. Thus, when he speaks of the Church in the West, he is frequently guilty of mistakes and omissions. Nothing for instance is said in his history about St. Augustine. In questions of chronology, too, he is frequently at fault, but he is by no means a persistent sinner in this respect. The objection most frequently made in respect to Socrates as a historian is that he was too credulous and that he lent too ready an ear to stories of miracles and portents. This, however, is a fault of the time rather than of the man, and was shared by pagan as well as Christian authors. His most notable characteristic, however, is his obvious effort to be thoroughly impartial, as far as impartiality was consistent with conviction. He held the scales equitably, and even when he differed widely from men on matters of doctrine, he did not allow his dissent from their views to find expression in denunciation or abuse. His "Church History" was published by Stephen (Paris, 1544) and by Valesius (Paris, 1668, reprinted at Oxford by Parker, 1844, and in P. G., LXVII). A good translation is given in the Post-Nicene Fathers, II (New York, 1890), with an excellent memoir on Socrates by Zenos. ST=C4UDLIN, Geschichte und Literatur der Kirchengeschichte (Hanover, 1827); GEPPERT, Die Quellen des Kirchenhistorikers Socrates Scholasticus (Leipzig, 1898); MILLIGAN in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v. Socrates (2). PATRICK S. HEALY Socrates Socrates Greek philosopher and educational reformer of the fifth century B.C.; born at Athens, 469 B.C.; died there, 399 B.C. After having received the usual Athenian education in music (which included literature), geometry, and gymnastics, he practised for a time the craft of sculptor, working, we are told, in his father's workshop. Admonished, as he tells us, by a divine call, he gave up his occupation in order to devote himself to the moral and intellectual reform of his fellow citizens. He believed himself destined to become "a sort of gadfly" to the Athenian State. He devoted himself to this mission with extraordinary zeal and singleness of purpose. He never left the City of Athens except on two occasions, one of which was the campaign of Potidea and Delium, and the other a public religious festival. In his work as reformer he encountered, indeedhe may be said to have provoked, the opposition of the Sophists and their influential friends. He was the most unconventional of teachers and the least tactful. He delighted in assuming all sorts of rough and even vulgar mannerisms, and purposely shocked the more refined sensibilities of his fellow citizens. The opposition to him culminated in formal accusations of impiety and subversion of the existing moral traditions. He met these accusations in a spirit of defiance and, instead of defending himself, provoked his opponents by a speech in presence of his judges in which he affirmed his innocence of all wrongdoing, and refused to retract or apologize for anything that he had said or done. He was condemned to drink the hemlock and, when the time came, met his fate with a calmness and dignity which have earned for him a high place among those who suffered unjustly for conscience sake. He was a man of great moral earnestness, and exemplified in his own life some of the noblest moral virtues. At the same time he did not rise above the moral level of his contemporaries in every respect, and Christian apologists have no difficulty in refuting the contention that he was the equal of the Christian saints. His frequent references to a "divine voice" that inspired him at critical moments in his career are, perhaps, best explained by saying that they are simply his peculiar way of speaking about the promptings of his own conscience. They do not necessarily imply a pathological condition of his mind, nor a superstitous belief in the existence of a "familiar demon". Socrates was, above all things, a reformer. He was alarmed at the condition of affairs in Athens, a condition which he was, perhaps, right in ascribing to the Sophists. They taught that there is no objective standard of the true and false, that that is true which seems to be true, and that that is false which seems to be false. Socrates considered that this theoretical scepticism led inevitably to moral anarchy. If that is true which seems to be true, then thatis good, he said, which seems to be good. Up to this tome morality was taught not by principles scientifically determined, but by instances, proverbs, and apothegms. He undertook, therefore, first to determine the conditions of universally valid moral principles a science of human conduct. Self-knowledge is the starting point, because, he believed, the greatest source of the prevalent confusion was the failure to realize how little we know about anything, in the true sense of the word know. The statesman, the orator, the poet, think they know much about courage; for they talk about it as being noble, and praiseworthy, and beautiful, etc. But they are really ignorant of it until they know what it is, in other words, until they know its definition. The definite meaning, therefore, to be attached to the maxim "know thyself" is "Realize the extent of thine own ignorance". Consequently, the Socratic method of teaching included two stages, the negative and the positive. In the negative stage, Socrates, approaching his intended pupil in an attitude of assumed ignorance, would begin to ask a question, apparently for his own information. He would follow this by other questions, until his interlocutor would at last be obliged to confess ignorance of the subject discussed. Because of the pretended deference which Socrates payed to the superior intelligence of his pupil, this stage of the method was called "Socratic Irony". In the positive stage of the method, once the pupil had acknowledged his ignorance, Socrates would proceed to another series of questions, each of which would bring out some phase or aspect of the subject, so that when. at the end, the answers were all summed up in a general statement, that statement expressed the concept of the subject, or the definition. Knowledge through concepts, or knowledge by definition, is the aim, therefore, of the Socratic method. The entire process was called "Hueristic", because it was a method of finding, and opposed to "Eristic", which is the method of strife, or contention. Knowledge through concepts is certain, Socrates taught, and offers a firm foundation for the structure not only of theoretical knowledge, but also of moral principles, and the science of human conduct, Socrates went so far as tro maintain that all right conduct depends on clear knowledge, that not only does a definition of a virtue aid us in acquiring that virtue, but that the definition of the virtue is the virtue. A man who can define justice is just, and, in general, theoretical insight into the principles of conduct is identical with moral excellence in conduct; knowledge is virtue. Contrariwise, ignorance is vice, and no one can knowingly do wrong. These principles are, of couse only partly true. Their formulation, however, at this time was of tremendous importance, because it marks the beginning of an attempt to build up on general principles a science of human conduct. Socrates devoted little attention to questions of physics and cosmogony. Indeed, he did not conceal his contempt for these questions when comparing them with questions affecting man, his nature and his destiny. He was, however, interested in the question of the existence of God and formulated an argument from design which was afterwards known as the "Teleological Argument" for the existence of God. "Whatever exists for a useful purpose must be the work of an intelligence" is the major premise of Socrates' argument, and may be said to be the major premise, explicit or implicit, of every teleological argument formulated since his time. Socrates was profoundly convinced of the immortality of the soul, although in his address to his judges he argues against fear of death in such a way as apparently to offer two alternatives: "Either death ends all things, or it is the beginning of a happy life." His real conviction was that the soul survives the body, unless, indeed, we are misled by our authorities, Plato and Xenophon. In the absence of primary sources Socrates, apparently, never wrote anything--we are obliged to rely on these writers and on a few references of Aristotle for our knowledge of what Socrates taught. Plato's portrayal of Socrates is idealistic; when, however, we correct it by reference to Xenophon's more practical view of Socrates' teaching, the result cannot be far from historic truth. WILLIAM TURNER Sodality Sodality I The sodalities of the Church are pious associations and are included among the confraternities and archconfraternities. It would not be possible to give a definition making a clear distinction between the sodalities and other confraternities; consequently the development and history of the sodalities are the same as those of the religious confraternities. A general sketch of these latter has been already given in the account of the medieval confraternities of prayer (see Purgatorial Societies). They are also mentioned in the article Scapular. Confraternities and sodalities, in the present meaning of the word, the only ones which will be here mentioned, had their beginnings after the rise of the confraternities of prayer in the early Middle Ages, and developed rapidly from the end of the twelfth century, i.e. from the rise of the great ecclesiastical orders. Proofs of this are to be found in the Bullaria and annals of these orders, as those of the Dominicans, the Carmelites, and the Servites. [Cf. Armellini, "Le chiese di Roma" (2nd ed., Rome, 1891), 20 sqq.; "Historisch-politische Blätter", cxlviii (Munich, 1911), 759 sqq., 823 sqq.; Ebner, "Die acht Brüderschaften des hl. Wolfgang in Regensburg" in Mahler, "Der hl. Wolfgang" (Ratisbon, 1894), 182 sq.; Villanueva, "Viage literario a las Iglesias de España", VIII (Valencia, 1821), 258 sqq., Apéndice IV; Gallia Christ., XI, instr. 253 sq., n. XXVII; ibid., VI, instr. 366, n. XXXIV; Mabillon, "Annales Ordinis Benedicti", VI, Lucca, 1745, 361 sqq., ad an. 1145; Martène, "Thesaurus novus anecdotorum", IV (Paris, 1717), 165 sqq. "Confraternitas Massiliensis an. 1212 instituta"; "Monumenta O. Servorum B.M.V.", I, 107, ad an. 1264; Gianius, "Annales O. Serv. B.M.V.", I (2nd ed., Lucca, 1719), 384, ad an. 1412; "Libro degli ordinamenti de la Compagnia di Santa Maria del Carmine scritto nel 1280" (Bologna, 1867)]. Pious associations of this kind, however, soon appeared, which were solely under the bishop and had no close connexion with an order. An interesting example of such an association of the year 1183 is described in the "Histoire générale du Languedoc" (VI, Toulouse, 1879, 106 sqq.), as an "association formed at Le Puy for the restoration of peace". A carpenter named Pierre (Durant) is given as the founder of this society. In regard to a "Confraternity of the Mother of God" which existed at Naupactos in Greece about 1050, see "La Confraternità di S. Maria di Naupactos 1048", in the "Bullettino dell' Istituto storico italiano", no 31 (Rome, 1910, 73 sqq.). From the era of the Middle Ages very many of these pious associations placed themselves under the special protection of the Blessed Virgin, and chose her for patron under the title of some sacred mystery with which she was associated. The main object and duty of these societies were, above all, the practice of piety and works of charity. The decline of ecclesiastical life at the close of the Middle Ages was naturally accompanied by a decline of religious associational life, the two being related as cause and effect. However, as soon as the Church rose to renewed prosperity in the course of the sixteenth century, by the aid of the Counter-Reformation and the appearance of the new religious congregations and associations, once more there sprang up numerous confraternities and sodalities which laboured with great success and, in many cases, are still effective. Of the sodalities which came into existence just at this period, particular mention should be made of those called the Sodalities of the Blessed Virgin Mary (congregationes seu sodalitates B. Mariæ Virginis), because the name sodality was in a special manner peculiar to these, also because their labours for the renewal of the life of the Church were more permanent and have lasted until the present time, so that these sodalities after fully three hundred years still prosper and flourish. Even the opponents of the Catholic Church seem to recognize this. The article "Bruderschaften, kirchliche" in Herzog-Hauck, "Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie", discusses almost exclusively the Sodalities of the Blessed Virgin Mary as the pattern of Catholic sodalities. It cannot, indeed, be denied that those sodalities are, by their spirit and entire organization, better equipped than other confraternities to make their members not only loyal Catholics but also true lay apostles for the salvation and blessing of all around them. In the course of time other pious Church societies sprang from the Sodalities of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or were quickened by these to new zeal and fruitful labours, e. g. the work of foreign missions, the "Society of St. Vincent de Paul", the "Society of St. Francis Regis", and many others. While all other confraternities and sodalities have as their chief end a single pious devotion or exercise, a peculiar aim of the Sodalities of the Blessed Virgin Mary is, by means of the true veneration of the Blessed Virgin, to build up and renew the whole inner man in order to render him capable of and zealous for all works of spiritual love and charity. Consequently these sodalities are described below in detail separately from the others. II All sodalities, pious associations, and confraternities may be divided into three classes, although those classes are not absolutely distinct from one another. The first class, A, includes the confraternities, which seek mainly to attain piety, devotion, and the increase of love of God by special veneration of God, of the Blessed Virgin, the angels, and the saints. The second class, B, consists of those sodalities which are founded chiefly to promote the spiritual and corporal works of mercy. The third class, C, may be considered to include those associations of the Church the main object of which is the well-being and improvement of a definite class of persons. A. The first class includes: (1) The "Confraternity of the Most Holy Trinity with the White Scapular" (see Scapular). (2) The Confraternites of the Holy Ghost. In 1862 such a confraternity was established for Austria- Hungary in the church of the Lazarists at Vienna, and in 1887 it received the right of aggregation for the whole of Germany. Special mention should here be made of the "Archconfraternity of the Servants of the Holy Ghost". It was first established in 1877 at the Church of St. Mary of the Angels, Bayswater, London. In 1878 it received the papal confirmation and special indulgences, in the following year it was raised to an archconfraternity with unlimited power of aggregation for the whole world. The director of the archconfraternity, to whom application for admission can be made personally or by letter, is the superior of the Oblates of St. Charles Borromeo, at the Church of St. Mary of the Angels, Bayswater, London, W. A third confraternity for the glorification of the Holy Ghost, especially among the heathen, was established in the former collegiate Church of Our Lady at Knechtsteden, Germany. It is directed by the Fathers of the Holy Ghost and of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Its organ is the missionary monthly, "Echo aus Knechtsteden". (3) There is no special confraternity in honour of the Heavently Father. There is, however, an "Archconfraternity of the Most Holy Name of God and of the Most Holy Name of Jesus". Originally this formed two distinct confraternities, which owed their origin to the Dominicans. At a later date they combined and were united into one society, the establishment of which is under the control of the general of the Dominicans. Paul V cancelled the indulgences previously granted to the confraternity and granted new ones. It is probable that the Brief of 21 Sept., 1274, of Gregory IX, addressed to the general of the Domincans, gave the first impulse to the founding of the above-mentioned confraternities. In this Brief the pope called upon the father-general to promote, by preaching, the veneration of the Holy Name of Jesus among the people. In America especially this society has spread widely and borne wonderful fruit. It has a periodical, "The Holy Name Journal," and has been granted new indulgences for those of its members who take part in its public processions [Analecta Ord. Fratr. Prædic., XVII (1909), 325 sq. See Holy Name, Society of the]. There are other confraternities and sodalities, especially in France, and also in Rome and Belgium, for the prevention of blasphemy against the name of God and of the desecration of Sundays and feast days (Beringer, "Les indulgences", II, 115 sqq.; cf. Act. S. Sed., I, 321). (4) A triple series of confraternities has been formed about the Person of the Divine Saviour for the veneration of the Most Holy Sacrament, of the Sacred Heart, and of the Passion. The confraternities of the Most Holy Sacrament were founded and developed, strictly speaking, in Italy from the end of the fifteenth century by the apostolic zeal of the Franciscans, especially by the zeal of Cherubino of Spoleto and the Blessed Bernardine of Feltre ("Acta SS.", Sept., VII, 837, 858). Yet as early as 1462 a confraternity of the Most Holy Sacrament existed in the Duchy of Jülich, in the Archdiocese of Cologne; other Confraternities of the Most Holy Sacrament were also founded in the Archdiocese of Cologne in the course of the fifteenth century (cf. "Köln. Pastoralblatt", 1900, 90). At Rome the Confraternity of the Most Holy Sacrament was founded (1501) in the Church of San Lorenzo in Damaso by the devotion and zeal of a poor priest and four plain citizens. Julius II confirmed this sodality by a Brief of 21 Aug., 1508, and wished to be entered himself as a member in the register of the confraternity. It is not, however, this sodality but another Roman confraternity that has been the fruitful parent of the countless confraternities of the Most Holy Sacrament which exist to-day everywhere in the Catholic world (cf. Quétif-Echard, I, 197 sq.). This second confraternity, due to the zeal of the Dominican Father, Thomas Stella, was erected by Paul III on 30 Nov., 1539, in the Dominican Church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva. This confraternity alone is understood when mention is simply made of the Confraternity of the Sacrament. Along with the honorary title of archconfraternity it received numerous indulgences and privileges by the Bull of 30 Nov., 1539. The indulgences were renewed by Paul V. It was made known at its inception that this confraternity could be established in parish churches, and that such confraternities should share in the indulgences of the archconfraternity without formal connexion with the Roman confraternity. This privilege was reconfirmed at various times by the popes who expressed the wish that the bishops would establish the confraternity everywhere in all parish churches (cf. Tacchi-Venturi, "La vita religiosa in Italia durante la prima età della Compagnia di Gesù", Rome, 1900, 193 sqq.). In the nineteenth century, however, confraternities for the adoration of the Most Holy Sacrament were also established in other countries, and these now extend all over the Catholic world. Mention is made in the article Purgatorial Societies of the "Archconfraternity of the Perpetual Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament under the Protection of St. Benedict." This association, that was founded in 1877 under Pius IX in Austria, was transferred to North America in 1893 during the pontificate of Leo XIII, and in 1910 received from Pius X the right of extension throughout the entire world. In 1848 a pious woman, Anne de Meeûs, established at Brussels in Belgium a religious society which had as its object to unite the adoration of the Most Holy Sacrament with work for poor churches. In 1853 this society was raised to an archconfraternity for Belgium; soon after this separate archconfraternities of the same kind were erected for Bavaria, Austria, and Holland. At the same time there sprang from the original society a female religious congregation which, after receiving papal confirmation, established itself at Rome, and since 1879 has conducted the archconfraternity from Rome. It has authority to associate everywhere with itself confraternities of the same name and purpose, and to share with these all its indulgences. The archconfraternity has received large indulgences and privileges, and labours with much success in nearly all parts of the world. Entrance into this confraternity is especially to be recommended to all altar societies. The full title of the confraternity is "The Archconfraternity of the Perpetual Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and Work of Poor Churches". Any information desired as to the working of the confraternity and the conditions of its establishment may be obtained from its headquarters, Casa delle Adoratrici perpetue, 4 Via Nomentana, Rome. Since 1900 the religious association of the Sisters of the Perpetual Adoration has had a house with a chapel at Washington, U.S.A., from which they extend and conduct the confraternity in America. The "Society of the Most Holy Sacrament", founded by the Venerable Pierre-Julien Eymard (d. 1868) also sought, by means of a new confraternity established by it, to incite the faithful to adoration and zeal for the glorification of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. In 1897 this society was raised to an archconfraternity with the right of aggregation throughout the world. In 1898 its summary of indulgences was confirmed by the Congregation of Indulgences. The main condition of membership is a continuous hour of adoration of the Most Holy Sacrament once a month. The headquarters of the confraternity are at Rome, in the church of the Fathers of the Most Holy Sacrament, whence the society has the name of "The Archconfraternity of the Most Holy Sacrament in the Church of Sts. Andrew and Claudius at Rome" (San Claudio, 160 Via del Pozzetto, Rome). "The Perpetual Adoration of Catholic Nations" was founded at Rome in 1883, its purpose being the union of the nations and peoples of the world for perpetual solemn expiatory prayer in order to avert God's just wrath and to implore His aid in the grievous troubles of the Church. The association is conducted by the Redemptorist Fathers in the Church of St. Joachim at Rome, lately built in memory of the jubilee of Leo XIII as priest and bishop. Special countries are assigned to each one of the different days of the week for the adoration of reparation, e. g. Thursday, North and Central America; Friday, South America. The rector of the Church of St. Joachim (Prati di Castello, Rome) is the director-general of the association, which has the right to appoint diocesan directors in all countries, including missionary ones. In order to enter the association, application should be made to one of these directors or to the director-general. Two other associations were founded in France for the purpose of expiation and atonement; these have already extended over the world. One is the "Association of the Communion of Reparation", the other the "Archconfraternity of the Holy Mass of Reparation". The "Association of the Communion of Reparation", established in 1854 by Father Drevon, S.J., was canonically erected in 1865 at Paray-le-Monial, in the monastery where the Divine Saviour had commanded Blessed Margaret Mary Alacoque to make reparation by Holy Communion for the ingratitude of men. This is also the purpose of the entire association, which can be canonically erected anywhere. The "Archconfraternity of the Holy Mass of Reparation" owes its origin to a poor widow of Paris, in June, 1862. Each member makes it his duty to attend a second Mass on Sundays and feast- days as expiation for those who sinfully fail to attend Mass on these days. In 1886 the confraternity was erected into an archconfraternity with the right of aggregation for France. At a later date other countries received in like manner a similar archconfraternity. Even in parts of the world where no such archconfraternity exists it is easy to be received into the confraternity. By a Decree of 7 Sept., 1911, of the Holy Office, all former indulgences were cancelled, and richer ones, to be shared equally by all the archconfraternities and confraternities of the Holy Mass of Reparation, were granted (Ad. Apost. Sed., III, 476 sq.). In this class belongs also the "Ingolstadt Mass Association". (See Purgatorial Societies.) (5) As early as 1666 confraternities of the Blessed Jean Eudes for the united veneration of the Heart of Jesus and the Heart of Mary were established. It was not until after the death of Blessed Margaret Mary Alacoque that there arose confraternities for the promotion of the adoration of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in the manner desired by her. During the years 1697-1764 more than a thousand such confraternities were erected by papal Briefs and granted indulgences. At Rome the first "Confraternity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus" was established in 1729 by the efforts of Father Joseph Gallifety, S.J. This confraternity still exists at the Church of St. Theodore, at the foot of the Palatine. The membership of this "Confraternity of the Sacconi" has included celebrated and holy men. Only men, however, can belong to it. Consequently it was given to another confraternity of the Sacred Heart to spread from Rome over the entire world. This is the sodality established in 1797 by Father Felici, S.J., in the little Church of Our Lady ad Pineam, called in Cappella. The sodality was raised in 1803 to an archconfraternity, and was afterward transferred by Leo XII to the Church of Santa Maria della Pace. Application to join this confraternity is made at the church. More than 10,000 confraternities have already united with it. The confraternities of the Sacred Heart erected in Belgium can unite with the archconfraternity of Paray-le-Monial, those established in France can either join this archconfraternity or that at Moulins. In addition a new confraternity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus was established in 1876 at Montmartre, Paris. In 1894 this society received the right to incorporate into itself other confraternities of the same name and object in any part of the world and to share its indulgences with these. The object of this confraternity, like that of the great church at Montmartre, is expiatory, and the society is to pray for the freedom of the pope and the salvation of human society. The "Archconfraternity of Prayer and Penance in honour of the Heart of Jesus", founded at Dijon in 1879 with the right of aggregation for the entire world, has, since 1894, been established at the church of Montmartre. A wish expressed by the Divine Saviour long before to Blessed Margaret Mary Alacoque was fulfilled on 14 March, 1863. On this day the "Guard of Honour of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus" was founded in the monastery of the Visitation at Bourg-en-Bresse, France. The name expresses the object of this sodality, which is to collect faithful hearts around the Saviour for constant adoration and love and to make reparation to Him for the ingratitude of men. In 1864 the association at Bourg-en-Bresse was confirmed as a confraternity, and in 1878 was made an archconfraternity for France and Belgium. In 1879 the confraternity was established at Rome in the Church of Sts. Vincent and Anastasius, and defined as an archconfraternity for Italy and all countries which have no archconfraternity of their own. In 1833 the confraternity of Brooklyn, New York, conducted by the Sisters of the Visitation, was confirmed by Leo XIII as an archconfraternity, with the right of aggregation for the United States. For the "Apostleship of Prayer" see The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. I, 633; Hilgers, "Das Goldene Büchlein", Ratisbon, 1911. In 1903 Leo XIII established at the Church of St. Joachim at Rome a special "Archconfraternity of the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus", granting it the right to unite sodalities bearing the same name as itself. The confraternity is intended to offer in a special manner adoration, gratitude, and love to the Heart of Jesus for the institution of the Holy Eucharist. Mention should also be made of the "Archconfraternity of the Holy Agony of Our Lord Jesus Christ", conducted by the Lazarist Fathers in Paris, which was established in 1862 in the Diocese of Lyons and was defined in 1865 a